After Heller, Chicago remains defiant

[nitrogen]

Point taken. If they make an environment hostile for developers, then the whole thing will never happen.

[AEA]

The Congress should pass a LAW that if any State or City restricts in any way the right of the People with regards to ANY of the amendments (including the 2nd), then all Federal Funding to the offending City AND State will be withheld until they toe the line.

[flintknapper]

The Congress should pass a LAW that if any State or City restricts in any way the right of the People with regards to ANY of the amendments (including the 2nd), then all Federal Funding to the offending City AND State will be withheld until they toe the line.

But... I would also like to see Barry Manilow music piped in via loud speaker. Cruel...I know, but effective.

[seamusTX]

That's a good idea (AEA's, not Barry Manilow).

Congress does that now with some discrimination-based issues. For example, you can't get funding for a project that does not conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Unfortunately, in the case of the second amendment, there was no agreement about what it meant until Heller was handed down, and all Heller really said what that we have the right to acquire and keep a firearm in our homes.

If Chicago's handgun ban went away tomorrow, the citizens of Chicago would still be stuck with all the registration, severe restrictions on carrying, "assault weapons" ban, and other nonsense (and in Illinois many possession offenses are felonies).

In any case, I don't see such a law coming out of the next Congress, or a Justice Department willing to enforce it.

- Jim

[nitrogen]

I'd actually settle for a federal law stating that any firearm restrictions given to the citizens of a state, the police of said state must abide by as well.

[atxgun]

The Congress should pass a LAW that if any State or City restricts in any way the right of the People with regards to ANY of the amendments (including the 2nd), then all Federal Funding to the offending City AND State will be withheld until they toe the line.

I don't see how this would change anything. I mean the whole Heller instance illustrates this. Poor decisions are made and it takes years to trickle up SCOTUS where it's declared unconstitutional.

All this law would change is at the end of the years long journey they say "hey this is unconstitutional and btw, it's also against that law about stuff needing to be consitutional"

[seamusTX]

These funding restrictions have been pretty effective in areas like uniform drinking ages and state seat-belt laws, which Congress does not have the power to regulate directly.

The problem is that Congress must have the will to write the law in a way that works. This Congress most likely is not going to do that for the second amendment.

- Jim

[atxgun]

These funding restrictions have been pretty effective in areas like uniform drinking ages and state seat-belt laws, which Congress does not have the power to regulate directly.

The problem is that Congress must have the will to write the law in a way that works. This Congress most likely is not going to do that for the second amendment.

- Jim

I was never a fan of funding restrictions as I view it as a work around to usurp states rights.

[seamusTX]

I see them that way, too, in most cases. The federal government is basically collecting taxes, and then offering to give some of it back to the states if they do the will of Congress.

However, withholding funds to compel the states' respect for constitutionally protected rights is a different animal.

- Jim

[AEA]

However, withholding funds to compel the states' respect for constitutionally protected rights is a different animal.
- Jim

EXACTLY.