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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 801-802 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: epow

And so it begins.


2 posted on 06/04/2009 6:00:55 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: epow

The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.


4 posted on 06/04/2009 6:05:17 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

What, you think state and local government should be able to ban guns?


5 posted on 06/04/2009 6:06:17 AM PDT by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: epow

Thats odd, it seems like they think the first amendment and it’s “no establishment of religion” clause, sure as hell applies to cities and states.

And it seems like 5th amendment cases are routinely enforced against municipal and state police departments.


6 posted on 06/04/2009 6:08:24 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Invalidating state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution (what’s ir actually says, not some imagined interpretation) is not judicial legislation. It’s what the courts are actually supposed to do.


7 posted on 06/04/2009 6:08:35 AM PDT by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Huh? Do you think that state and local governments should be able to say the 2nd amendment is void in the state/city?


8 posted on 06/04/2009 6:08:49 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hugin

That’s the puzzler on this ruling. If something is a constitutional right, then it cannot be abridged by the states.

The abortion crowd use that argument (successfully in most courts) all the time since Roe v. Wade essentially established abortion as a constitutional right.


9 posted on 06/04/2009 6:11:33 AM PDT by neocon1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC25dAAobRY&feature=related


10 posted on 06/04/2009 6:11:45 AM PDT by chicagolady (Mexican Elite say: EXPORT Poverty Let the American Taxpayer foot the bill !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Invalidating state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

11 posted on 06/04/2009 6:12:19 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: epow
This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

This after the US Supreme Court Heller decision, unfreakinbelievable!

The USSC needs to not only reverse this decision, it needs to come down hard on the 7th circuit judges who ignored their decision to drive this point home to the hardest heads in the federal and state judiciary, the 2nd protects the people from ALL governments at EVERY level that try to disarm them.

12 posted on 06/04/2009 6:16:17 AM PDT by epow ("Never take council of your fears" .....General Thomas "Stonewall " Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

“Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states”

yeah, that’d be like arguing that the 1st amendment restricted a states right to set up an offical church, or outlaw FR in that state.


13 posted on 06/04/2009 6:18:13 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.

I didn't see a sarcasm tag. Do you truly consider upholding the explicit Constitutional language of "shall not be infringed" to be judicial legislation?

14 posted on 06/04/2009 6:18:40 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: epow
This after the US Supreme Court Heller decision, unfreakinbelievable!

The District of Columbia is not a state.

15 posted on 06/04/2009 6:18:43 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

It was. Note the 1st says "Congress shall make no law", but the 2nd says "the right of the people shall not be infringed". It doesn't say just by Congress, but by anybody. That's because the Federal government needed to ensure that the people would be armed for the defense of the country. By ratifying it, the states agreed not to disarm the people.

16 posted on 06/04/2009 6:19:05 AM PDT by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states

One more reason for all State Constitutions to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms....

17 posted on 06/04/2009 6:20:07 AM PDT by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
yeah, that’d be like arguing that the 1st amendment restricted a states right to set up an offical church

It didn't. The court "discovered" that restriction in the 14th Amendment. Leftists have little regard for original intent.

18 posted on 06/04/2009 6:20:41 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: epow

To overturn, does the USSC have to accept and argue a whole new case? Isn’t there a method where they can use Heller to quickly shoot this down?


19 posted on 06/04/2009 6:20:50 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Whose side are you on? You actually believe that the states can pick and choose which constitutional rights to honor.


20 posted on 06/04/2009 6:22:44 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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