McDonald v. Chicago - a 5-4 victory applies to state and local regulations

[ericire12]

Indeed, but that would put them a day ahead of you. 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.
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

[fightingquaker13]

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.
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.

[Timothy]

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.

[twyacht]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

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....

[m25operator]

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.

[twyacht]

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?

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!

[ericire12]

As to me proving your point. Huh?

I wish I knew how to quit you!

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

[ericire12]

http://www.vpc.org/press/1006chi.htm

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?