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 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 801-802 next last
To: VRWCmember

Good luck with getting Mojave to answer the individual or collective right question. I tried and he continues to dance. He’ll probably remind you (like he has all of us) how low-brow you are compared to his supreme intellect.


341 posted on 06/04/2009 12:45:54 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
So it's not Federalism that you hate

Correct. You hate federalism, not I.

342 posted on 06/04/2009 12:46:37 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
State protections like the Illinois FOID card requirements? Or California's .50 cal ban?

With protections like those, who needs gun control laws?

State laws that violate the protections for our basic human Rights are exactly what the Courts are set up to rectify.

It's called "justice" and "freedom". Or are you against those as well?

343 posted on 06/04/2009 12:46:43 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
So you admit that my full statement was correct. That you don't like having Rights that can't be infringed upon by the States.

I'm glad you finally admitted that.

344 posted on 06/04/2009 12:47:41 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Be sure to demand a Grand Jury for a traffic ticket. Bailiffs love a good laugh.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Yes, Bailiffs enjoy laughing at idiots that don't know the difference between a traffic ticket and a "capital or otherwise infamous crime". So that is your argument on the whole "enumerated grand jury right" -- that traffic tickets prove this right isn't being enforced on the states? Pretty lame.

345 posted on 06/04/2009 12:48:14 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I believe your opinion is somewhere lost in the desert. You actually support the Chicago rulings against guns and yet you call me a Obama supporter. That’s mighty trollish of you.


346 posted on 06/04/2009 12:49:11 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Yes, if employees of the state. Just as I am in favor of allowing my employer to control MY speech on the job.

I cannot swear at fellow workmates. I cannot tell customers to f@@@ off. Y’know, that sort of stuff.


347 posted on 06/04/2009 12:50:27 PM PDT by RobRoy (This too will pass. But it will hurt like a you know what.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
you don't like having Rights that can't be infringed upon by the States.

Backwards. I support state protections, you want judicial activism instead.

348 posted on 06/04/2009 12:50:45 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Not applicable to states.

349 posted on 06/04/2009 12:52:26 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
I support state protections...

State protections like California's .50 cal ban?

Give it a rest. Nice going Ace.

"It's a fundamental, inalienable, pre-existing Right... Except in my State and I'm fine with that."

That the sheer lunacy of that double standard hypocrisy doesn't make your head explode is a minor miracle.

350 posted on 06/04/2009 12:53:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
You actually support the Chicago rulings against guns

State laws could have protected those rights. But you don't want that.

351 posted on 06/04/2009 12:54:15 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I never said that. You did. I guess you like being all alone with your wacky opinions. Good thing that those on the right do not agree with you.


352 posted on 06/04/2009 12:55:26 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Yes, if employees of the state.

So let's just imagine your personal preferences into the Constitution. That's how the left does it.

353 posted on 06/04/2009 12:56:01 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Good luck with getting Mojave to answer the individual or collective right question.

The individual or collective right question is generally irrelevant to the question at hand. At issue is whether the words "shall not be infringed" means (as mojave suggests) "shall not be infringed by the federal government but may be abrogated as the state government sees fit" or whether it means "shall not be infringed" (as the period immediately following the word "infringed" indicates).

354 posted on 06/04/2009 12:56:01 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: epow
NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.

An excerpt from their news release

355 posted on 06/04/2009 12:56:35 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

CJ Marshall and the majority were arguing that they did not have jurisdiction over this case of a taking. Why? Probably because they knew it was a hot issue that could lead to dangerous times in the still young nation.

They were punting. That’s all. Overall, the Court’s history of incorporating some, but not all, of the Amendments is curious and illogical on it face.

Hopefully, the Roberts Court will take the appeal and rule in favor of the concept that right to keep and bear arms is a individual right everywhere, in every State. The fact that the 2nd Amendment actually specifies that it is a right of the people will help.


356 posted on 06/04/2009 12:58:03 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
I never said that.

Don't be coy. You've been pushing for federal judges to decide such questions, instead of state laws.

357 posted on 06/04/2009 12:58:06 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Hopefully, the Roberts Court will take the appeal and rule in favor of the concept that right to keep and bear arms is a individual right everywhere, in every State.

And leave the interpretation of that right to the federal judiciary. So if the courts decide concealed carry isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, Congress can ban it nationwide and void all state laws protecting carry.

358 posted on 06/04/2009 1:01:11 PM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

I don’t doubt that the Court would still try to infringe around the edges, but if it decides that the 2nd is incorporated, then the concepts of Heller will bring us closer to original intent than if they don’t agree to incorporate. IMO.

The strange thing about Scalia’s opinion in Heller is that he seems to agree that the 2nd is an individual right to KEEP arms, but not so much to BEAR arms. He would allow much more infringement of the bearing than of the keeping.


359 posted on 06/04/2009 1:17:45 PM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

The only State firearm law that doesn’t run afoul of the Second Amendment is Alaska’s.


360 posted on 06/04/2009 1:18:02 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 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