City of Sacramento to consider supporting Chicago gun ban

[Dirk Tungsten]

I didn't see this anywhere else, so I hope this isn't a dupe. Copied and pasted from the Sacramento Bee's website:

TUESDAY

Sacramento considers filing brief in support of Chicago's handgun ban

What: Sacramento City Council will consider whether to authorize the City Attorney's Office to join as amicus curae with other cities arguing that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and local governments. Last year, the Supreme Court court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun ban, ruling it was an infringement on Americans' fundamental rights. Now, in McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court will consider whether it applies states and local governments.

When: 6 p.m.

Where:1st floor council chambers, City Hall, 915 I St., Sacramento

I may actually try to attend this, if only to see our completely useless local rulers discuss the merits of curtailing of our rights. I'm sure the rationalizations will be hilarious.

[wildhawker]

I can't wait to read which side of history our friends in Sacramento wish to align themselves.

[PatriotnMore]

I didn't see this anywhere else, so I hope this isn't a dupe. Copied and pasted from the Sacramento Bee's website:

TUESDAY

Sacramento considers filing brief in support of Chicago's handgun ban

What: Sacramento City Council will consider whether to authorize the City Attorney's Office to join as amicus curae with other cities arguing that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and local governments. Last year, the Supreme Court court struck down the District of Columbia's strict gun ban, ruling it was an infringement on Americans' fundamental rights. Now, in McDonald v.Chicago, the Supreme Court will consider whether it applies states and local governments.

When: 6 p.m.

Where:1st floor council chambers, City Hall, 915 I St., Sacramento

I may actually try to attend this, if only to see our completely useless local rulers discuss the merits of curtailing of our rights. I'm sure the rationalizations will be hilarious.

I would like to see all C.G's here, and gun owners in general, in Sacramento show up for this in direct opposition.

[wash]

If you get to ask questions, ask them if they agree with the origional reason why our state constitution does not include RKBA, because they didn't want Mexican Americans to have guns.

Then ask them what other races they want to discriminate against.

Ask them if they want to legalize slavery too.

[NorCalMama]

Sorry if I didn't read it carefully, but what is the date of the meeting??? Cause I definitely want to attend this!

edit: It says Tuesday, so just so I'm totally clear, this Tuesday? Also, can you please post the link?

[Dirk Tungsten]

It's this Tuesday, which is the 15th.

[NorCalMama]

What should a person attending read up on in order to prepare for the meeting? Any lawsuits? Any laws? Any other materials that would be beneficial in preparation??
Thanks! And thank you for the heads up!

[CCWFacts]

If you get to ask questions, ask them if they agree with the origional reason why our state constitution does not include RKBA, because they didn't want Mexican Americans to have guns.

Then ask them what other races they want to discriminate against.

Ask them if they want to legalize slavery too.

Yeah, ask them about the Colfax Massacre and the subsequent United States v. Cruikshank, which the Chicago case is trying to overturn. Ask them if they think it's cool to massacre blacks and then escape prosecution, because that's the side they are defending.

Print out some copies of the San Francisco Chronicle 1924 article explaining the purpose of our CCW law, which is to keep Latinos, Chinese and legal aliens from being armed.

It's amazing to see people still attempting to defend the Cruikshank ruling. It's the last Jim Crow court ruling still in force in the US that I am aware of.

[Dirk Tungsten]

Here's the link where I learned of this: http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2392762.html I went looking for further information on the City Council's website, and I couldn't find anything, so either the agenda isn't published there, or it's well hidden in there.

Honestly, I may not be the best person to ask re: recommended readings to prep for facing the city council. I'm wondering if there will even be much time allotted for public comment. I wonder of the City council is even aware of all of the pending cases awaiting a decision in the Chicago case? Competence and awareness don't seem to be their strong suit.

[RP1911]

I'll be there. Suit and tie on.

[RP1911]

Here you go:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=98

Item #28

28. Estimated Time: 15 minutes
City of Sacramento Amicus Support in McDonald v. Chicago
Location: (Citywide)
Recommendation: Discuss and consider whether to authorize the City Attorney’s
Office to take the necessary steps to have the City of Sacramento join as amicus
curiae with various cities in McDonald v. Chicago, United States Supreme Court Case
no. 08-1521, in support of the position that the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution does not apply to the States and local governments.
Contact: Eileen Teichert, City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, Office of the City Attorney.

[dfletcher]

Ever the diligent public servants - they're spending time and money on this item instead of addressing city issues.

[Kalgunner]

their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

[cc4usmc]

their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

Same thing I was thinking. If it doesn't apply to the states, where is it supposed to apply?

[snobord99]

their argument doesn't make sense. if the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't apply to the states, that would open the door for states to say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. either the bill of right protects all citizens or none. i see a slippery slope. am i wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. You would think it was that simple, but it's not. Look for an explanation of the legal concept of "incorporation." It dictates some parts of the BoR applies while others don't.

And, actually, it does apply to "all citizens." But only if the entity doing the limiting is the federal government.