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

[twyacht]

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....

 

[philw]

just fixing it for you

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.

talk about

Now where is that ROFLMAO smiley?

 

carry on with normal programming now

[philw]

how it has been reported here

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939760.htm

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".

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

[Solus]

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?

[Solus]

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?

[Sponsor]

[philw]

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?

that is what I would like to know

[kygunnut]

The fight ain't over, folks!

And will probably never be over in my lifetime. This fight must be continued for our children and their children, ...etc

[ericire12]

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?

[PegLeg45]

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?

[ericire12]

Back to judge Soto:

http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/18/sotmayor-heller-is-settled-law/