Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: oldkat69 on June 28, 2010, 10:27:54 AM
But, it is a sad to see that only 5 judges believe in the rule of law. ??? What part on "make no law do they not understand"? Thank you, Otis McDonald
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Hazcat on June 28, 2010, 10:32:06 AM
Statement of Brady President Paul Helmke on Second Amendment Ruling by U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
"We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.
"We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its 'any gun, for anybody, anywhere' agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.
"Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws."
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce gun violence in America through education, research and legal advocacy. Through its Legal Action Project, the Brady Center provides pro bono legal assistance to gun violence victims and public entities seeking to establish legal principles that will reduce gun violence. The Brady Center complements the legislative and grassroots mobilization efforts of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.
the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.
I want some of whatever he's smoking! ;D
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: shooter32 on June 28, 2010, 10:48:14 AM
Quote Of The Day: "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner." Justice Samuel Alito
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Timothy on June 28, 2010, 11:28:32 AM
an interview with Masaad....
'Otis McDonald'...I asked him was what sort of handgun he planned to acquire if, as almost all SCOTUS watchers predict, the case that bears his name results in an opinion that shoots down the nearly 30-year-old Chicago handgun ban. His answer? A 1911 model .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol…a gun he became familiar with as a soldier defending his country.
Always begin with what works...
;D
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Marshal Halloway on June 28, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
Gun makers Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger rise on Supreme Court gun defense
It's become part of the liberal bible to oppose guns. So I can say I'm really shocked. I was wondering which way Sotomayor was going to go because of some of the questions she asked, but I'm still not shocked at the way she voted.
Quote
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce gun violence in America through education, research and legal advocacy. Through its Legal Action Project, the Brady Center provides pro bono legal assistance to gun violence victims and public entities seeking to establish legal principles that will reduce gun violence. The Brady Center complements the legislative and grassroots mobilization efforts of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.
This guy is a real lunatic! Their isn't a bit of that statement that is true!
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Woody on June 28, 2010, 11:46:22 AM
What do you want to bet the death rate goes down in Chicago, and Daley is seen for what he is. Great day for gun owners and the right to self defense, bad day for criminals. The very thought of guns any where and everywhere deters evil. G Washington
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 12:00:41 PM
Here is a good read on it, with some of the best parts of Alito's writtings:
What do you want to bet the death rate goes down in Chicago, and Daley is seen for what he is. Great day for gun owners and the right to self defense, bad day for criminals. The very thought of guns any where and everywhere deters evil. G Washington
Maybe, maybe not. Honest people will now be able to OWN guns, not carry them. It'll still be just the bad guys who can practice concealed carry.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: WatchManUSA on June 28, 2010, 12:41:53 PM
I've had Rush on today and he has a interesting take on the decision. While I have not read the ruling, Rush indicated that the majority view used post-civil war free slaves having and using firearms to defend their freedom and personal safety. That linked the 2nd Amendment to the 14th Amendment. Once again the left gets 'windmilled" on their own issue.
I did read that some Chicago politician said that SCOTUS did not strike down the Chicago gun ban. SCOTUS only decided that the 2nd Amendment attached to the States. He said that SCOTUS affirmed that 'sensible' anti-gun laws can still be implemented.
The fight ain't over, folks!
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 12:54:41 PM
I've never been a Scalia fan, but I've always found him entertaining. Today, he was both right and funnier than usual. That left handed whip song he sent to Stevens is classic. "Sensitivity" indeed! The Constitution is a living document. It is however, a freaking document! Justices are not free to ignore the words on the page and act as tribunes using their own wisdom to write the law of the land. That is as bad as the original intent idiots. If that were the case poor Otis still wouldn't have had his gun as the framers of the 14th ammendment didn't intend it to anything more than cover discrimination based on race. Still, there are those pesky words on a page, "shall not be infringed" and "due process". Hang it your ass Stevens. The only bad news is that the Conservative justices still ignore the "privledges and immunities" clause. That really is a defeat for us and every other group that wants to limit state power. I am happy with the decision today. That said, don't be too happy. It is a tactical, not a strategic victory. Until the the privledges and immunities clause is given teeth, and until the 2A is held to be a "fundamental right", rather than just a "substantive guarantee" we have just won a beach head. Its still a long way to Berlin. :) >:( :-\ FQ13 who will still open a very nice bottle of wine tonight and say some good things about Alito. I will then curse him for being a statist at heart who could not bring himself to write the words "fundamental right", because if he had, it would have been game over.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: WatchManUSA on June 28, 2010, 01:10:44 PM
Comments from the Chicago Tribune... http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html
The high court did not say those challenges will necessarily succeed, however. "Despite doomsday proclamations (from city officials)," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said extending the reach of the 2nd Amendment "does not imperil every law regulating firearms."
He repeated earlier assurances that "reasonable regulations" of firearms will be upheld, including restrictions on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill and bans on guns in schools and government buildings.
****
An attorney involved in the case advised against Chicagoans running out and purchasing handguns until a lower court rules on the matter later this summer.
"Obviously I'm elated by the court's decision, said attorney David Sigale. "(But) I think it would be prudent to wait."
Sigale said he expects the U.S. District Court to take up the case again in the coming weeks and issue the city directives on the handgun ban and a number of specific ordinances regarding re-registration and pre-registration.
*****
In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."
****
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, said he was concerned that the "constitutional victory" of today's ruling will be "turned into a practical defeat by defiant city councils and cynical politicians who seek to nullify or revise this decision through a byzantine labyrinth of regulations and restrictions" to make handgun ownership "unaffordable and inaccessible."
Addressing Daley, LaPierre said: "He's saying, 'I don't care if it's a constitutional right.' The opinion of Mayor Daley doesn't entitle him to throw out the Bill of Rights."
LaPierre, anticipating Daley will protest the high court's ruling, continued, "Can you imagine if he did this with a case about speech, about religion or the right to vote?"
*****
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told reporters that despite the ruling, the court had decided that "reasonable restrictions" to the Second Amendment still are allowed.
He said the court's ruling, while not a surprise, left a "very narrow" definition of a person's Second Amendment rights by saying right lets a person keeps a gun in a home for self-defense.
He added that he expects criminals convicted of gun charges to challenge their convictions in light of the case.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: GUNS-R-US on June 28, 2010, 01:59:30 PM
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2010, 03:46:26 PM
Alito also noted law abiding minorities, in high crime neighborhoods, where owning a firearm to defend yourself and family, would benefit the community, is also an obligation covered by the 2nd Amend.
Due to the lack of elected officials to provide adequate police, and stability.
(paraphrasing), heard it on Schnittshow.com radio.
I caught Limbaugh's analysis as it relates to the 39th Congress, and the 14th Amend.
+1 That whole 'living document' thing is what got the country into most of this mess to begin with.
Jeeze, you use two little words..., ;D actually, I think we are on the same page(give or take a few, but still in the same chapter anyway). I just used a very academic and precise version of the Living Constitution thing, not the one that gets thrown around in politics. The definion is below.
Is it dead Jim? ;D Or do I use a oujia board to summon the ghost of Madison, or the various state legislators that ratified it? Do I just read the words like a fundamentalist? The answer is both of the above. A justice should interpret based on the text (first and foremost), the intent, (only secondarily because I don't KNOW what the framers thought, I do know what they wrote down and got passed) , thirdly the precedents applied by other courts reviewing the same issues, and finally, guided by this, their own judgement over how to apply old priciples to new issues (such as the interstate commerce clause and the net). Thus it is a living document, but not in sense of "you make it up as you go along and 5 is a bigger number than 4" as you seem to be implying. If that is what the term "living Constitution" means to you, it was not what I meant at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll try to avoid terms that have become politicized. Its kind of like "Born Again". It used to just be a theological term. Now its gotten all wrapped up in politics which is too bad. FQ13
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 04:53:50 PM
And what exactly would you say to the ass hat at the airline customer service counter if they said "well that passengers bill of rights is a living document"? You would lose your mind!
It's not a living document. It's our contract with govt
If u don't like it, then change it... But until then you better take it for what it is and not read b/t the lines!
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 05:15:49 PM
And what exactly would you say to the ass hat at the airline customer service counter if they said "well that passengers bill of rights is a living document"? You would lose your mind!
It's not a living document. It's our contract with govt
if u don't like it, then change it... Bit until then your beter taken it for what it is and not read b/t the lines!
In case you weren't paing attention to the case eric, McDonald IS a case of the Court reading between the lines. It IS an example of the Living Constitution (used in the narrow sense of the term, and henceforth never to be used by me again). First the document is vague. It was written this way on purpose to gain enough support to pass it. Its first big test was in 1805 in Baron v Baltimore. Here the Court had to decide if the BOR applied to the states or just the feds. Well, it doesn't say in the document, it could have been decided either way. The justices "read between the lines" and saw that the document generally restricted the feds not the states, so they said no, just the feds, the states have their own BORs and they should govern state conduct. Fast forward to today. The Court overcame this 205 year old precedent by applying the 14th ammendment. Well, what did the authors of the 14th ammendment INTEND? To overturn local gun laws? Hardly. Was the intent of these laws to discriminate based on race? No. But the current court "read between the lines", looked at precedent and essentially said that the due process clause should incorporate the 2A. If an original intent standard had been applied, McDonald wouldn't have gotten a writ of certiorari, much less won. As I said, its the text first, intent second, precedent third and making a judgement call since you're the guy on the spot, last. There is no such thing as an "objective" call on any case complicated enough to make it to the Court. Its not a math problem. There are better and worse opinions, but they call them opinions for a reason. FQ13
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Hazcat on June 28, 2010, 06:10:34 PM
I've never been a Scalia fan, but I've always found him entertaining. Today, he was both right and funnier than usual. That left handed whip song he sent to Stevens is classic. "Sensitivity" indeed! The Constitution is a living document. It is however, a freaking document! Justices are not free to ignore the words on the page and act as tribunes using their own wisdom to write the law of the land. That is as bad as the original intent idiots. If that were the case poor Otis still wouldn't have had his gun as the framers of the 14th ammendment didn't intend it to anything more than cover discrimination based on race. Still, there are those pesky words on a page, "shall not be infringed" and "due process". Hang it your ass Stevens. The only bad news is that the Conservative justices still ignore the "privledges and immunities" clause. That really is a defeat for us and every other group that wants to limit state power. I am happy with the decision today. That said, don't be too happy. It is a tactical, not a strategic victory. Until the the privledges and immunities clause is given teeth, and until the 2A is held to be a "fundamental right", rather than just a "substantive guarantee" we have just won a beach head. Its still a long way to Berlin. :) >:( :-\ FQ13 who will still open a very nice bottle of wine tonight and say some good things about Alito. I will then curse him for being a statist at heart who could not bring himself to write the words "fundamental right", because if he had, it would have been game over.
I guess you did not read the opinion of the court because it states that the 2A is a "fundamental right" several times. Which may well automatically kick in the strict scrutiny test as well.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 06:12:11 PM
In case you weren't paing attention to the case eric, McDonald IS a case of the Court reading between the lines. It IS an example of the Living Constitution (used in the narrow sense of the term, and henceforth never to be used by me again). First the document is vague. It was written this way on purpose to gain enough support to pass it. Its first big test was in 1805 in Baron v Baltimore. Here the Court had to decide if the BOR applied to the states or just the feds. Well, it doesn't say in the document, it could have been decided either way. The justices "read between the lines" and saw that the document generally restricted the feds not the states, so they said no, just the feds, the states have their own BORs and they should govern state conduct. Fast forward to today. The Court overcame this 205 year old precedent by applying the 14th ammendment. Well, what did the authors of the 14th ammendment INTEND? To overturn local gun laws? Hardly. Was the intent of these laws to discriminate based on race? No. But the current court "read between the lines", looked at precedent and essentially said that the due process clause should incorporate the 2A. If an original intent standard had been applied, McDonald wouldn't have gotten a writ of certiorari, much less won. As I said, its the text first, intent second, precedent third and making a judgement call since you're the guy on the spot, last. There is no such thing as an "objective" call on any case complicated enough to make it to the Court. Its not a math problem. There are better and worse opinions, but they call them opinions for a reason. FQ13
Quote
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Your liberal nuance is wrong again. It didnt really take reading between the lines to figure this one out. A first day law student could have gotten it right.
This whole "living document" crap is just liberal code speak that means activist judges are fine and that social justice is perfectly exceptable.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 06:15:47 PM
I guess you did not read the opinion of the court because it states that the 2A is a "fundamental right" several times. Which may well automatically kick in the strict scrutiny test as well.
Then I stand very cheerfully corrected Haz! I just read the news reports and the quotes they had didn't include anything more than a "substantive guarantee". Thats a high bar, but not as high as "fundamental right". That does indeed (mostly) trigger the "strict scrutiny" test. I owe Alito an apology. I intend to start reading the whole opinion tonight or tommorow. A very, very happy day indeed if that was what the opinion said, as now its just a matter of arguing over the details. FQ13
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 06:28:29 PM
Your liberal nuance is wrong again. It didnt really take reading between the lines to figure this one out. A first day law student could have gotten it right. Quote No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Indeed, but that would put them a day ahead of you. ;D The first day law student would know that the case was decided on the due process clause, not the pivileges and immunities clause. That particular clause has sadly been a dead letter since the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. Here the Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause did not restrict the police powers of the state. Conservative justices including especially Scalia have defended this decision fiercely as they see it as a bastion of states rights and a way to avoid substantive, rather than just procedural, due process claims. Its a crock IMHO, but thats their claim. If you want me to give you the lecture for day two, I'll be happy to. ;D ;D ;D ;D FQ13 who is going straight to hell for that post,. Sorry Eric, but you did walk into it. PS Here's Alitos dismissal of the Privileges and Immunities clause from the Hot Air piece you posted. (nice post BTW, thanks).
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: C.O.T.U.S. on June 28, 2010, 06:38:54 PM
Sadly this will change nothing in Chicago as it changed virtually nothing in D.C. This is however a great peg for future cases to rest on. This is the the second lap of a long race till politicians finally get thier arses sued into doing what the founders wanted in the first place.
I hope for more than politics as usual but I doubt we wil get it.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 07:10:37 PM
Indeed, but that would put them a day ahead of you. ;D The first day law student would know that the case was decided on the due process clause, not the pivileges and immunities clause. That particular clause has sadly been a dead letter since the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. Here the Court ruled that the privileges and immunities clause did not restrict the police powers of the state. Conservative justices including especially Scalia have defended this decision fiercely as they see it as a bastion of states rights and a way to avoid substantive, rather than just procedural, due process claims. Its a crock IMHO, but thats their claim. If you want me to give you the lecture for day two, I'll be happy to. ;D ;D ;D ;D FQ13 who is going straight to hell for that post,. Sorry Eric, but you did walk into it. PS Here's Alitos dismissal of the Privileges and Immunities clause from the Hot Air piece you posted. (nice post BTW, thanks).
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.
Wow! A little full of ourselves arent we........ ::)
I seriously dont know why I waste my typing finger on you, Quaker. You pretty much proved my point
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 07:23:41 PM
Wow! A little full of ourselves arent we........ ::)
I seriously dont know why I waste my typing finger on you, Quaker. You pretty much proved my point
I have been accused of being full of other things as well. It was a joke eric, chill. ;D FQ13 PS As to me proving your point. Huh? You relied on the privileges and Imunities clause in your argument. In the above quote Alito said that they never considered it in their decision. That doesn't sound like agreement. Here's a quote from Justice Miller (writing for the majority) in the Slaughter-House cases where he explains why the privileges and immunities clause shouldn't apply to the states. This is still the POV of most state's rights judges today, and a major stumbling block to folks who want to use the BOR to limit governmental power on the state level on a host of different issues.
"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . . It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”
—Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74 (1873) To bottom line that, you've got two seperate contracts. One with the feds, one with your state. The 14A's Privileges and Immunities clause protects you from the feds. As far as the states go? You're on your own, unless the law is racially discriminatory.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Timothy on June 28, 2010, 07:28:37 PM
Regardless of the argument that has commenced....to quote the Vice Dimwit of the United States...
"This is a big f*@king deal!"
I hope it's the beginning of better things to come.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2010, 07:46:42 PM
If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.
Care to argue/debate that FQ? Let's ask Mayor Daley,....
pg 49.
Poetry.
Drink a toast to Thomas & Alito. The Constitution (as written), won today. Stop taking the Ginsberg Kool-Aid. That's why the Founders made the 2nd Amend SO SIMPLE.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: fightingquaker13 on June 28, 2010, 08:11:02 PM
If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.
Care to argue/debate that FQ? Let's ask Mayor Daley,....
pg 49.
Poetry.
Drink a toast to Thomas & Alito. The Constitution (as written), won today. Stop taking the Ginsberg Kool-Aid. That's why the Founders made the 2nd Amend SO SIMPLE.
Agreed with all of the above. The only argument was whether, and on what grounds, to apply it to the states. We won on the whether question, but lost on the what grounds question, as the NRA argued for the privileges and immunities clause, and only used the due process clause as boiler plate. You shouldn't have to produce a down trodden black guy to get your constitutional rights enforced. The fact that the plantiff was black was not an accident. It was a way to let the conservative majority do what they wanted to do anyway without undermining state power and giving life to the P@I clause. If they'd relied on that, with a white plantiff, it might gone 7-2 against. Still, three cheers for Alito and another for Scalia for bitch slapping Stevens as a parting gift. FQ13
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2010, 08:12:30 PM
Need to read the amount of VAST statute and history, our country went through to affirm today's ruling. Alito and Thomas just "refreshed" those who forgot.
The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).22 Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, which was considered at the same time as the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, similarly sought to protect the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms.23
The Democrats back than tried to pick and choose, "which" Amendments applied to these folks or those,
OBTW, it was Republicans that initiated this, as Southern Democrats, including the likes of Robert "KKK" Byrd 100 years later, now in the hereafter, who would have preferred those "damn (insert the N word), never got the right to have a gun...
Just check Al Gore Sr.'s record....
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: m25operator on June 28, 2010, 08:23:25 PM
Raise a glass tonight to the decision and Daley and Bloomberg, needing Depends for a day or two. I read 14 pages of the decision tonight, and will read the remaining 200 as time go's by, thanks Marshall for putting it up for us. The Sullivan act, this too shall pass, I hope and pray for the truly downtrodden. These people have been without for so long, F'm and feed them fish heads Bloomberg and Daley. I know the cities will resist and put lots of road blocks to actually getting the firearm in your hands and home to protect yourself. But at least there is not a blanket NO, to owning and keeping in your home. Or pay the man on the side to get a permit.
Take out the trash Nov 2, 2010, write it down.
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2010, 08:39:08 PM
I keep reading it, and it keeps shutting down the Brady Bunch, and the anti's position, even those who consider the Constitution as a "living document", down.
pg. 34
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: “Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his home-stead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the pol-luted wretch to another world, where his wretched-ness will forever remain complete.” Ibid.
Gee, wonder what his point was? ;D
What part of this do these folks NOT understand.
If I lived in Chicago, I would be ordering my .357 Magnum, and 12g tomorrow.
The anti's won't stop, they will make the fees, reg's, applications, taxes, etc,... and the hoops to jump through, very difficult to own a firearm.
BUT, THE BAN IS OVER!
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 09:22:44 PM
My point was that there was so much in the 14th that negates the chicago gun ban that even a 1st year law student could have made the case. It really did not matter how the NRA chose to argue this case.... fish in a barrel.... fish in a barrel.
BTW Justice Thomas sides with me
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 28, 2010, 09:30:09 PM
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006chi.htm
Quote
People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.
Now where is that ROFLMAO smiley?
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: twyacht on June 28, 2010, 09:55:12 PM
It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry.
Are you kidding me? BHO, singlehanded, became the best gun salesman in history....
::)
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: philw on June 28, 2010, 10:05:34 PM
People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.
carry on with normal programming now (http://gallery.me.com/philw/100192/10007/web.gif?ver=12747845170001) (http://gallery.me.com/philw/100192/clinte1vg1/web.gif?ver=12747845490001)
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: philw on June 28, 2010, 10:12:37 PM
A United States mayor is vowing to fight a US Supreme Court decision overturning his city's ban on handguns in the home.
Each day, 80 Americans die from gun violence. Last month 164 people were murdered in Chicago. In the majority of cases a gun was the weapon of choice.
Chicago mayor Richard Daley is convinced the figure would be higher if it was not for a ban on handguns in the home which has been in place in Chicago for the last 30 years.
"Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns," he said.
But now the Supreme Court has overturned that ban, ruling that it is un-constitutional for state and local governments to restrict gun ownership.
Chicago resident Otis McDonald, 76, was one of the plaintiffs.
He says he has had numerous burglaries at his home and wants a handgun for protection.
"I don't have be concerned about the young drug dealers and gangbangers coming in my house because I believe now that they will think twice," he said.
His lawyer, Alan Gura, says people should be able to defend themselves.
"This decision is not going to be the end of all gun laws, but it should the end of all attempts to disarm Americans for no other reason other than a disagreement with the public policy of people being able to defend themselves," he said.
Daniel Weiss, a senior lawyer at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says he is relieved the court made a very narrow ruling by suggesting less strict laws might not have been overturned.
But he still expects the pro-gun lobby to feel empowered.
"So the only two things we expect to result now from the opinion is that criminals and the gun lobby will file lots of challenges to gun laws," he said.
"The courts will overwhelmingly reject those challenges.
"Since the DC ruling came down two years ago, saying that Washington DC couldn't ban handguns in the home, 260 challenges were filed to gun laws. Those were overwhelmingly rejected by the court."
But Annette Nance-Holt, whose son Blair was shot dead on a bus while shielding a classmate, could not hide her distress at the Supreme Court decision.
"The communities that are going to be affected by this are black and brown communities," she said.
"These are the only communities that I know of right now that continue to suffer from the ravages of gun violence every day, every day, and these stories don't make the news.
"These are stories I live every day as I work and I hear on the radio and on the TV."
The powerful National Rifle Association has hailed it as a great moment in American history.
It is certainly a significant point in the ongoing debate over what America's constitutional fathers meant by the "right to keep and bear arms".
Quote
black and brown communities
what tha ??? I though it would be american communities it is the shit v shit gang fights that are the issue
why should law abiding people be affected by THERE crimes and be defenceless
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Solus on June 29, 2010, 08:22:13 AM
People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.
I'm confused....is this talking about the All Powerful Gun Lobby and Rolling in Cash Gun Industry that have been funding all the Pro Gun Propaganda and Laws that the majority of the people don't want?
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: Solus on June 29, 2010, 08:28:54 AM
A United States mayor is vowing to fight a US Supreme Court decision overturning his city's ban on handguns in the home.
Another question. How exactly do you legally fight a Supreme Court decision?
Just make laws counter to the decision and keep them in effect until a court finds them in violation of the decision?
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: philw on June 29, 2010, 08:38:06 AM
And will probably never be over in my lifetime. This fight must be continued for our children and their children, ...etc
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 29, 2010, 10:00:06 AM
Thomas’ Privileges or Immunities Opinion: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/06/28/thomas-privileges-or-immunities-opinion/
I personally think they should have just read the second amendment aloud and then rested their case. The outcome would have been the same. They didnt really win over any extra votes by taking all that time and presenting a well thought out case.
Like was stated earlier, the decisions came down along political lines and the fact that this was actually a 5-4 decision rather then the obvious 9-0 decision that it should have been is appauling. Yes, a first day law student can plainly see that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the bill of rights...... But we had 4 justices who think that we should not have that right because it may endanger society.
DO YOU DAMN JOBS! It is not for you asshats to tell WE THE PEOPLE what is best for us. Your job is to tell us if something is constitutional - and guess what... ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THAT IT IS! If we the people dont like what is in the constitution then we can change it, but dont nuance it into what you think is best for us.
Weep for your country, ladies and gentlemen. We are indeed living under a judicial monarchy. These people that sit on the court and reign over us - the liberal justices and the conservative ones too - are no longer actually doing their jobs. They are stepping into a voting booth and casting a political vote. GOD FORBID one of the conservative justices gets into a car accident or has a heart attack on Obama's watch. Do you really think that these clowns will let this decision be binding precident? If the court ever flips 5-4 the other way, you can kiss legal gun ownership goodbye. The fact that you already know how each justice will vote on every single case before the court hears it just makes me want to puke. We have won a battle that is significant in the short term, but if the perfect storm comes along then it can all be gone in an instant.
*No surprise in how Judge Soto voted on her first case, now is there? ::)
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: PegLeg45 on June 29, 2010, 11:59:59 AM
In case you weren't paing attention to the case eric, McDonald IS a case of the Court reading between the lines. It IS an example of the Living Constitution (used in the narrow sense of the term, and henceforth never to be used by me again). First the document is vague. It was written this way on purpose to gain enough support to pass it. Its first big test was in 1805 in Baron v Baltimore. Here the Court had to decide if the BOR applied to the states or just the feds. Well, it doesn't say in the document, it could have been decided either way. The justices "read between the lines" and saw that the document generally restricted the feds not the states, so they said no, just the feds, the states have their own BORs and they should govern state conduct. Fast forward to today. The Court overcame this 205 year old precedent by applying the 14th ammendment. Well, what did the authors of the 14th ammendment INTEND? To overturn local gun laws? Hardly. Was the intent of these laws to discriminate based on race? No. But the current court "read between the lines", looked at precedent and essentially said that the due process clause should incorporate the 2A. If an original intent standard had been applied, McDonald wouldn't have gotten a writ of certiorari, much less won. As I said, its the text first, intent second, precedent third and making a judgement call since you're the guy on the spot, last. There is no such thing as an "objective" call on any case complicated enough to make it to the Court. Its not a math problem. There are better and worse opinions, but they call them opinions for a reason. FQ13
And, pray tell, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, just how do you construe the words, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", as vague?
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: ericire12 on June 29, 2010, 12:31:18 PM
And, pray tell, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, just how do you construe the words, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", as vague?
I agree with the decision. I wish it had been done under the P@I clause, but ultimately a win is a win. The vague part (not to me, but past Courts and scholars) lies in two questions. First it was preceeded by the "well regulated militia" clause. The antis argued that since it was there to provide for a militia, the right was collective, not individual and it protected the states NG. The other vague bit was whether it applied to the states or just the feds. Did it stop Congress or your local city council? My opinion on the matter is the same as yours, but there are arguments both ways. I will say that Eric's last vent is precisly on the money where when he went off on the politicication of the Court. If the justices were guided by judical philosophy you would expect to see some liberals support it on individual liberties grounds and some conservatives oppose it on states rights grounds. As it is, you knew what the vote would be before the argument was heard. :P FQ13
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: MikeO on June 29, 2010, 02:43:43 PM
The WSJ had two good articles on this. Having read the opinions, I agree w the WSJ take:
-The dissenting 4 made it clear as soon as they have a 5, Heller and McDonald are history, stare decisis be damned.
-Thomas's concuring opinion may have resurected the P&I clause. It took 20 yrs for "diversity" to make it's way from a concuring opinion to a majority opinion re affirmative action, we can hope the P&I clause does the same for gun rights.
It all depends on who picks the inevitable replacements for the 5?
If Chicago (and others) requires liability insurance, could indirectly boost NRA membership if owners join to get the insurance discount? Millions more buying insurance could lower the cost for the rest of us who are already buying it too?
Title: Re: McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations
Post by: tt11758 on June 29, 2010, 04:40:01 PM
Quote
People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.
You can hardly argue with the effectiveness of Chicago's gun ban. There is virtually NO violent crime in that city, as evidenced by the fact that two state legislators recently begged Illinois' Governor to send National Guard troops to patrol the city.