Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court
NRA-ILA ^ | 06/04/09 | unk

Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow

On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 7thcircuit; appeal; banglist; chicago; decision; lawsuit; nra; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 801-802 next last
To: Boogieman
Did you miss the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right

Is the Constitution natural law?

61 posted on 06/04/2009 6:57:40 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

So if they basically say “reconsider in light of heller”, is that like saying,,”or else eventually you’re going to be overturned”?


62 posted on 06/04/2009 7:00:25 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Which you cannot refute, or even address.

I think I did, and that it is you who "cannot refute, or even address." But, of course, anyone who thinks about something and commits it to writing does so thinking he hat Recht. So I look to others who are interested to comment upon what I wrote.

ML/NJ

63 posted on 06/04/2009 7:00:41 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by the states.

The Supreme Court rejected that facile argument centuries ago.

"Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."

64 posted on 06/04/2009 7:01:03 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MrB
the 2nd simply says shall not be infringed. Period.

What does this prove? The Fifth Amendment, for instance, states that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

In my state, however, the prosecutor can file an information instead of seeking an indictment from a grand jury.

Likewise, the Eighth Amendment is pretty unequivocal, but there is no constitutional guarantee against excessive bail against the states. Why do you think that is?

65 posted on 06/04/2009 7:02:28 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
you do not think 2nd amendment gives us an individual right to own a gun?

The right to keep and bear arms preexisted the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd is not the source of that right.

66 posted on 06/04/2009 7:02:33 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I think I did

Must have been silently.

67 posted on 06/04/2009 7:03:30 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Never been challenged?
That would be my first response.


68 posted on 06/04/2009 7:03:56 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The Bill of Rights is a set of declaratory restrictions on the powers granted to the federal government by the states.

The intent of the Bill of Rights was not quite that statist. Yes, it reserved powers and rights to the states respectively, but also to the people. The second amendment specifically declares the right to keep and bear arms is a right OF THE PEOPLE, that shall not be infringed. The 9th amendment states that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage other rights that are retained by the people. You seem to be making the statist argument that even though the right of the people is specifically enumerated, since the broad language of "shall not be infringed" failed to specify "neither congress nor the states shall infringe the right of the people" the states somehow retained the power to restrict an enumerated right. And at the same time, you keep mentioning original intent?

69 posted on 06/04/2009 7:04:16 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

yes, except you argue that a state can invalidate it with a new law. Because while you argue a fairly unusual point of view, a court today ruled Chicago can take away the right to own a gun. NRA wants THAT decision overturned, what is your solution? You don’t want it appealed, so you want it to stand in Chicago?


70 posted on 06/04/2009 7:05:40 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

I think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is prett darn plain and intelligible.

71 posted on 06/04/2009 7:09:28 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Yes, it reserved powers and rights to the states respectively, but also to the people.

The United States Constitution did not create the states. The United States Constitution was not the source of state powers.

The United States Constitution delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. Any rights reserved were reserved from those delegated powers.

Statists, such as yourself, prefer centralized government and legislation from the federal bench.

72 posted on 06/04/2009 7:11:30 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dahoser; Mojave

And Illinois’ Constitution did that by re-stating the 2nd Amendment almost verbatim.

But, then there is the “home rule” clause for cities.


73 posted on 06/04/2009 7:12:40 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
I think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is prett darn plain and intelligible.

And I think that it's pretty darn plain that the United States Constitution wasn't a replacement constitution for each of the fifty states.

74 posted on 06/04/2009 7:13:49 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
except you argue that a state can invalidate it with a new law.

Not if their state constitution says otherwise.

75 posted on 06/04/2009 7:14:47 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino; Mojave
-- yes, except you argue that a state can invalidate it with a new law. Because while you argue a fairly unusual point of view, a court today ruled Chicago can take away the right to own a gun. NRA wants THAT decision overturned, what is your solution? You don't want it appealed, so you want it to stand in Chicago? --

He did NOT argue that the states were free to prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. You are inferring that. Likewise as to his desire about the condition of local law in Chicago.

The legal solution (which will not be forthcoming) is to properly read and apply the Presser case. There is a reason states may not prohibit keep and bear arms, but that reason is NOT the 2nd amendment. The RKBA does not flow to the people via the 2nd amendment, to be enforced or not at the pleasure of the feds. See scores of 2nd amendment cases (where the Circuits positively BLEW IT), cert. denied. SCOTUS is anti-RKBA.

The realpolitic solution hasn't been developed yet. I hope SCOTUS denies cert in the Nordyke/Maloney/Chicago cases, to further show their current hostility to the RKBA. That might cause some people to snap out of their stupor. If it doesn't, well, that's that.

76 posted on 06/04/2009 7:15:45 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Illinois, like most states, provides some level of state constitutional protections guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms. Additional protections exist in state and municipal laws.

The useful idiots would wash those protections away in favor of micromanaging from the federal bench.

77 posted on 06/04/2009 7:18:32 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

“The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.”

How so? Sounds to me like the NRA is calling for the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution.

Since when is NOT judicially reversing the constitution “judicial legislation.”

The “living document” BS is just that — BS. The constitution either means what it says or it means nothing.


78 posted on 06/04/2009 7:18:59 AM PDT by LoneStarC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
except you argue that a state can invalidate it with a new law.
-- Not if their state constitution says otherwise. --

Not even then, according to the Presser case.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that [a state law that requires a parade permit] do[es] not have this effect.

79 posted on 06/04/2009 7:20:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The RKBA does not flow to the people via the 2nd amendment, to be enforced or not at the pleasure of the feds.

Much better stated than I was able to do. Well said.

80 posted on 06/04/2009 7:20:45 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 801-802 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson