IL House Resolution 0855: 2ND AMEND-NOT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Fasci --I mean "members" of the Illinois House are attempting to pass a resolution urging the SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective right instead of an individual one...

    Last update lists it as sent to the Rule Committee, which is currently made up of 3 Dems and 2 Reps.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...3&DocTypeID=HR&LegId=92803&SessionID=88&GA=99

    HR0855 LRB099 15137 MST 39363 r

    1
    HOUSE RESOLUTION


    2 WHEREAS, Gun violence is an ever present problem in the
    3 State, as well as nationwide; an example of which is 8 persons
    4 dying in Chicago in one week in October due to gun violence;
    5 and

    6 WHEREAS, In the past few years, court rulings, including
    7 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia V.
    8 Heller, in interpreting the Second Amendment to the United
    9 States Constitution have overturned long standing precedent,
    10 which had supported state and local authority to deny gun
    11 possession when necessary to promote and protect public safety;
    12 in order to reach its decision, the 5 member majority of the
    13 United States Supreme Court either ignored or misinterpreted
    14 much of the clear and plain wording of the Second Amendment;
    15 and

    16 WHEREAS, As stated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in
    17 his well-thought out dissent on behalf of 4 Justices in Heller:
    18 "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the
    19 people of each of the several States to maintain a
    20 well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised
    21 during ratification of the Constitution that the power of
    22 Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national
    23 standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of




    HR0855 - 2 - LRB099 15137 MST 39363 r

    1 the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the
    2 arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest
    3 interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate
    4 private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no
    5 indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to
    6 enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the
    7 Constitution."; rather the Second Amendment's original purpose
    8 was to act as a check on federal gun-making policy, not to
    9 prevent individual states from creating gun policy as they saw
    10 fit; and

    11 WHEREAS, The legal view of the Second Amendment as a
    12 collective, militia right, and not an individual right, held
    13 for over 200 years until the Heller decision in 2008, which
    14 invalidated a law barring individuals from possessing a handgun
    15 not registered before the law took effect and annual
    16 registrations for the remaining handguns; and

    17 WHEREAS, The Heller decision and other pro-firearm
    18 industry court rulings have resulted in a proliferation of guns
    19 in numerous communities and have diminished the security and
    20 freedom of our citizens to enjoy a life free of gun violence;
    21 living with the fear of gun violence is contrary to living in a
    22 free society; high levels of gun violence are a threat to the
    23 security of whole communities; and





    HR0855 - 3 - LRB099 15137 MST 39363 r

    1 WHEREAS, The cost of gun violence has been pushed onto
    2 everyone except the people and companies that produce and sell
    3 firearms; the firearms industry benefits financially when more
    4 guns are sold; more firearms in circulation leads to more gun
    5 crimes, homicides, and suicides to the extent that gun-related
    6 deaths will soon exceed the number of deaths in automotive
    7 crashes; but the Heller decision effectively said that most of
    8 the Second Amendment should be disregarded in favor of the part
    9 that is most profitable to the firearms industry, "the right of
    10 the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; and

    11 WHEREAS, Throughout the history of the United States,
    12 federal and state laws have regularly placed restrictions on
    13 who can legally own, possess, and use firearms; even prior to
    14 the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, gun control laws
    15 were enacted; therefore laws restricting gun access are not
    16 anomalous to American law; and

    17 WHEREAS, Before these court decisions, state legislatures
    18 had been able to pass laws restricting gun access if it was in
    19 the best interests of public safety; therefore, be it

    20 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
    21 NINETY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we
    22 urge the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to
    23 restore interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right




    HR0855 - 4 - LRB099 15137 MST 39363 r

    1 afforded to state-sponsored militias that as Justice Stevens
    2 stated in his Heller dissent, " ... it does not curtail the
    3 Legislature's power to regulate the non-military use and
    4 ownership of weapons ... ".
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    .
     

    Attachments

    • exploding-head-1134334.jpg
      exploding-head-1134334.jpg
      41 KB · Views: 552

    md123

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 29, 2011
    2,005
    Funny how the 2,000 page Obamacare bill passed by one party (and unread by all) in the dead of night is "the settled law of the land" but the left are still unsure of what "shall not be infringed" means.


    .
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Yeppers ...

    Wasn't this issue settled already in the Supreme Court? They confirmed that it is an individual right. I think it was the Heller case.

    McDonald v. Chicago ... of all places.

    Different from District of Columbia v. Heller

    The Heller case was regarded as a sort of predecessor to the McDonald case, and there are many similarities between the two. But the McDonald ruling goes much further, saying that all state and local gun control laws must meet the standards of the Second Amendment, and of the Heller ruling — not just federal laws. But the Court left for another day the question of which gun control laws, if any, could be reconciled with the Heller and McDonald rulings.

    Their "resolution urging the SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective right instead of an individual one" was narrowly struck down in Heller. Only a change in SCOTUS mix and a new, but different challenge would be at issue.

    Several lower courts ruled in their favor, and the Supreme Court upheld those rulings in a landmark 5-4 decision. Crucially, the Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun, rather than a collective right to gun ownership, which would allow citizens to form militias, for example, but would not preclude the government from outlawing individual handgun ownership.

    Isn't it amazing how much public monies are spent trying to overturn 2A by gun-grabbing politicians like Rahm Emanuel & company.

    ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES !!!
     

    QuebecoisWolf

    Ultimate Member
    May 14, 2008
    3,767
    Anne Arundel
    This has just gotten sad.

    They don't even care anymore. So what if it will be overturned when it gets to SCOTUS in five years? When that happens, just pass another law like it.

    The waste of taxpayer dollars is going to be staggering.
     

    shooter56

    Active Member
    Aug 28, 2015
    141
    These clowns don't have a clue as to what the founders intent of the 2A was. They should read, The Founder's Second Amendment, Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, written by Stephen P. Halbrook. A great book that I have recently read. You get the facts from the founders themselves rather than biased opinions and spin from gun control advocates.

    From his book:

    "The historical evidence set forth in this work suggests that the Founders had a predilection for both a well regulated militia and an individual right to have arms, and that they envisioned that the two clauses of the Amendment would complement rather than be in tension with each other.

    This work seeks to present the views of the Founders who actually created the Second Amendment. It is based on their own words as found in newspapers, correspondence, debates, and resolutions. Generous quotations from the Founders are used to allow them to speak for themselves, thereby avoiding the appearance of re-characterization of their views."

    Not to mention that most states have their own state constitutions with provisions concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Many don't even mention any militia, including Illinois, which states: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Here is a link for individual state constitutions regarding the right to keep and bear arms. I like Maine and Nevada, plain and simple.

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,410
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom