New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

[44 AMP]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.

Actually, it is a civil right. Yes, it is a natural right, a God given right, if you prefer, but it is also a civil right. It is a right of the civil population, it is not a martial right, exclusive to the military.

SO, in that context, it is a civil right.

 

[Spats McGee]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Civil rights are those granted by the government where my God given, natural, and birth rights are beyond any government or societal management.

I disagree. The source of a right does not (wholly) determine the nature of the right. Rights may be civil, criminal, statutory, or contractual in nature.

 

[armoredman]

Did not Heller state that the 2A is a "core, fundamental Constitutional right"? I'm nowhere hear a lawyer in any way shape or form, but does that nto qualify it as a civil right, like free speech and the tattered 4A?

 

[Al Norris]

I'm closing this thread, as it has diverged from discussing the case at hand to a discussion of what constitutes a civil right.

Discussion of the actual case (Ezell v. Chicago) may be made here: Chicago loses Ezell ---- again (23 Jan`17)

Discussion as to what constitutes a civil right will require another thread.