Posted on 06/26/2008 3:55:39 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
Well Kennedy came through on this one. Even a Kennedy is preferable to a Ginsburg. That's why this election is so important.
Gura, the lawyer behind this case, has ALREADY filed a suit in Chicago. It is BIG, the whole enchilada, INCORPORATION and all.
http://bfa.cros.net/OrlovChicagoComplaint.pdf
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Murdock vs. Pennsylvania
There is no more important right than the right to bear arms. Without it we are surely at the mercy of tyrants.
The ninth circus court of appeals had previously ruled that the 2nd was not an individual right but a collective right. Will this decision force them to modify their ruling or only change future opinions?
Reagan was a idiot with O'Connor and Kennedy.
That old geezer probably knows more about constipation and incontinence now than he does about the US Constitution. He's been on the SC since 1976?
Now is the time to strike. With a likely bad news senate on the horizon in 2008 and the average Scotus member 20 years older than my dad, we better hit now when we have the chance.
That old geezer probably knows more about constipation and incontinence now than he does about the US Constitution. He's been on the SC since 1976?
Absolutely not. You will be charged with murder if you do. But I catch your drift. :-)
According to NAGR (National association for gun rights):
“6/26/2008 - Supreme Court upholds individual right to arms, but reaffirms gun control
After an initial assessment of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, this decision may go down as the court ruling that stops gun bans but protects gun control.
Though we’ll have a more comprehensive analysis of the case later, there is some good — and a lot bad — in the Supreme Court’s decision:
* It reaffirms the Second Amendment as an individual rights, and is unconnected with service in a militia
* It overturns trigger lock laws as unconstitutional
However, it reaffirms the ability of government to license, register and regulate all types of firearms.
In short, it gives a green light to all forms of gun control except the banning of entire classes of arms.
Again, we’ll have a full analysis shortly. “
Why can’t a “conservative” Supreme Court just come out and tell us that federal gun controls enforced within the Several states of the Union are unconstitutional and unenforceable?
Always loved Chicago - great people, good food, lot’s of culture. Been there many times on business. Just hated the corruption and the gun laws (well the winters aren’t too happenin’ either). Fixin’ the gun laws may well help with the corruption, too.
... The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession.
First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home.
In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies...
Hey, you don’t have to tell me. I’m a strict constructionist. I don’t believe the government- local, state or federal- have most of the “powers” they have usurped already.
Also, I refuse to apply for a CCW, purely on the reasoning that there is no Constitutional power to force me to. But I’m not stupid enough to carry all the time without one and get my a** put in jail and have to fight the harassment of a bogus charge though.
I do have a driver’s license for the same reason, although I don’t feel that the state has the power to require me to have one, and I will explain that til I’m blue in the face to those who think driving is a privilege.
I have just learned that discretion is the better part of valor unless you have more money than brains or are a lib connected politician who is above the law.
While a strict constructionist, I’m also a realist. ;^D
If it comes down to a jury of your peers, who would convict you?
“CNN had their supposed legal scholars weighing in on Monday.”
I saw one of them around 6 am central. It was truly surreal listening to a “scholar” flippantly dismissing hundreds of years of relevant history and legal foundations. She couln’t even express the anti-gun “select militia only” (ie. national guard) argument clearly.
How juvenile and irresponsible of CNN.
I've read Roe. As bad as Roe v Wade was, Doe v Bolton was worse. It created the "health" exception....which can mean almost anything. Thank the Burger court. He was chief. Rehnquist was just an associate and wasn't chief until Reagan came in. Warren Burger was also the dunderhead who had that infamous "second amendment fraud" comments to parade magazine.
While I sympathize with that view, that doesn't hold up in court. I don't recommend that you, I, or anyone else be the test case on that. Risking court costs and attorney fees even if I win and jailtime, a felony or high misdemeanor, major fines, and being kicked out of my profession if I lose is not worth that price - at least to me when I can get the CCW permit.
Right. I'm not a lawyer but if I am reading the decision correctly it appears that many of the present infringements on the right to keep and bear arms will still be allowable under this ruling. For one example NYC can still keep it's strict Sullivan law which makes it extremely difficult and expensive for an ordinary NYC resident to legally buy and keep a handgun. Chicago's gun licensing law is more like the D.C. law that was invalidated, so it may be challenged and quite possibly invalidated as well. However I don't see anything in the decision that will help people in "may issue" or "no issue" states obtain concealed carry licenses, or that will void laws such as those regulating magazine capacity, barrel length, stock configuration, types of ammunition, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I am delighted that the court confirmed what everyone knows but many won't admit, i.e., that 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right rather than just a state's right to maintain an armed militia. We were only one vote away from losing whatever protection the 2nd Amendment now provides, and thereby opening the floodgates to a deluge of new and even more oppressive gun laws. I hope every gun owner will join me in thanking God for President Bush and his two SCOTUS appointments. If Kerry had won Ohio in '04 we would now be looking at a 6-3 SCOTUS decision overturning the D.C. circuit and opening the doors to any kind of gun ban or anti-gun scheme the antis could persuade or pay off a Democrat controlled Congress to pass.
By the same token, if Obama is elected and teamed with a Democrat Congress because many conservatives refuse to vote for McCain we can expect a liberal, activist SCOTUS in the near future, and a deluge of decisions that will change the way we live and conduct our lives in so many ways we won't recognize the US as our once free homeland. I neither trust nor like McCain, but comparing him to Obama is like comparing day to night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.