McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[Radarrider]

I'm just tickled pink to hear this on the news. 1 month ago as I drove through Chicago I had to leave my carry behind for fear of a Police stop. While at the same time I'm worrying if I was getting off the interstate in the wrong hood...would I get splattered in our murder capital by people that simply don't care about any law/ban and shoot their neighbors dead all the time?

Oh well, they'll make more criminals out of law-abiding citizens with whatever new ban they come up with while the real criminals keep killing each other and innocents.

Idiots will be idiots. Just stay out of my face and I'll stay out of Chicago as much as possible. Florida beaches, now they want tourism, maybe we take our money there --RR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's good that Justice John Paul Stevens goes out with a bang. I hope the other

liberals on the high court decide to retire when a conservative is in the White House.

Yep, Raoul, I think it is a pro states rights decision, also. It makes the decision a

natural right and helps to prevent further abuse by the Fed, states and local gov.

A more level playing field, and is better foundation for "We, the People".

Edited June 28, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[Mike.357]

he's a heck of a community

organizer.

I hear this and read it so I assume he actually was a community organizer. What does one of these actually do, and was he any good at that either?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.

Umm, when was the last time you saw "gun criminals" petitioning the court about the 2A?

[Guest SUNTZU]

Brady campaign is already crying.

VPC in serious pain, y'all:

Violence Policy Center Statement on McDonald v. Chicago Decision -- WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

"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."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hear this and read it so I assume he actually was a community organizer. What does one of these actually do, and was he any good at that either?

That's one of the few reasons he got elected, Mike. He represented SEIU and ACORN

and was active in organizing community groups in the Chicago area for political

reasons only. That's all he's ever done. He has no other experience in life except his

communist teachings. That's why he can't make an executive decision. He has no

business or management experience. But communists don't like business, anyway.

they like your money, and when they figure out it's all gone, they, well, put your own

thoughts to that.

Put the community organizer like Obama, trained with Alinsky tactics, and the right

message. Put that with the money and spread the propaganda far and wide in a so called centrist message and he proved anyone can become president, even the wrong

types.

Edited June 28, 2010 by 6.8 AR
add

[mikegideon]

Well, taking over car companies and insurance companies didn't get him fired, especially

since he was way unconstitutional in those acts. Why would you trust him with anything

else? And that oil spill is going great with his leadership. Bobby Jindal will need a big box of Tide

when he cleans himself up, much less the shoreline. I wouldn't trust Obama with a cheeseburger.

They need to be giving the prez less authority. He can't handle any but, he's a heck of a community

organizer.

I'm not in the mood to defend him right now, but I still don't believe that Nazi germany is his utopia either. Somebody needs a kill switch. We can give it to Glen. Just gotta make sure he stays on his meds. He misses a dose on occaision

[Guest Jamie]

Would I be wrong in assuming this is also a pro states-rights ruling also?

I don't see it as a pro-state rights ruling, since it limits a state's ability to impose it's will on it's citizens. I see it strictly as a pro-individual ruling.

J.

[Mark@Sea]

All a matter of definition. According to VPC et al, if you own a gun you are a gun criminal. If you have a carry permit, you're a raving psychotic who is a menace to the public at large.

They are really fortunate that we gun owners are so peaceful - wouldn't be pleasant for them if we took grave exception to such language.

And hey, I STILL want to know why Helmke has a (recently renewed ) ffl.

[Guest Jamie]

Why is everybody carrying on about Obama? Heller was much more of a kick in the nuts to him than McDonald is.

J.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not in the mood to defend him right now, but I still don't believe that Nazi germany is his utopia either. Somebody needs a kill switch. We can give it to Glen. Just gotta make sure he stays on his meds. He misses a dose on occaision

There's nothing to defend, except that new Alamo being built in AZ. He's assaulting it right now.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All a matter of definition. According to VPC et al, if you own a gun you are a gun criminal. If you have a carry permit, you're a raving psychotic who is a menace to the public at large.

They are really fortunate that we gun owners are so peaceful - wouldn't be pleasant for them if we took grave exception to such language.

And hey, I STILL want to know why Helmke has a (recently renewed ) ffl.

Probably so he can get his props at a discount. Liberals are leeches on capitalism, too.

Until they can destroy it.

[raydog1]

Lamentation of the women indeed.

Speaking of Arnold, I wonder what the "shadow of his once great self" will say about this since he hasn't touched the anti-open carry bill on his desk yet.

[ttocswob]

I disagree, Heller and McDonald both state keep and bear is included in the right... Palmer v DC the next case (by the same attorney as McDonald) will address the bear part... I suspect SCOTUS will hear that case sometime in the next 2 years.

I was referring to the NRA/Wayne LaPierre statement, not the SCOTUS ruling...reading comprehension, my friend:)

[Guest tnvolfan]

Thank God the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure Obama and his henchmen and henchwomen are not too happy about it. It's scary how close this decision is, though, and if they put this new female "never been a judge" on the Supreme Court, who knows what will happen to individual rights -- kiss them goodbye. Hopefully, we'll be able to hang on to our guns for a while longer.

[raydog1]

Why is everybody carrying on about Obama? Heller was much more of a kick in the nuts to him than McDonald is.

J.

Yep. Which is why he patted it on the head and claimed it as his own:

Obama Likes Heller - Politics - The Atlantic

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but - BS about stuff I know nothing about. . . "

It will be interesting to see if he spins this the same way, or as 6.8 AR suggests, he states that the SCOTUS went too far this time. If he choses the latter, I wish him luck in explaining THAT to us.

[MCSCOTT]

I don't see it as a pro-state rights ruling, since it limits a state's ability to impose it's will on it's citizens. I see it strictly as a pro-individual ruling.

That's the way I view it as well. This takes away city and state rights as to whether or not they will allow their residents to own firearms, and gives that power back to the people of those cities and states.

[GKar]

For those interested:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[Guest Tiki Jane]

While I am very happy the Court upheld the 2A in McDonald v Chicago, reading through the thread re: posted - no carry is sobering. If malls, restaurants, theaters, etc can issue such rulings (and as private property owners, that is their prerogative) then we have the unhappy task of choosing to boycott them (and that probably won't bother them a lot), violate their edicts (with enormous potential consequences), or not carry when there is no choice but to patronize them. If Wal-Mart, for example, issues a corporate stance prohibiting legal carry (and you can substitute whatever you want for Wal-Mart), then what?

I'm going to shop on line as much as I can to avoid this situation, but that's not an option with groceries or medical visits.

Maybe with this ruling, some businesses will re-evaluate their "no carry" policies, but I won't hold my breath.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Tiki Jane

[BigK]

HA! take that liberal Democrap establishment!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep. Which is why he patted it on the head and claimed it as his own:

Obama Likes Heller - Politics - The Atlantic

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but - BS about stuff I know nothing about. . . "

It will be interesting to see if he spins this the same way, or as 6.8 AR suggests, he states that the SCOTUS went too far this time. If he choses the latter, I wish him luck in explaining THAT to us.

It's going to be hard to tell how he deals with this ruling,

but I'll bet anyone he comes out and says that SCOTUS

has made their decision and that he supports the right of the people to own a hunting rifle, or something like that.

He will move on to other altruistic crap before he really

cranks down on firearms, like his biggest worry: losing

his communist congress. His power base is threatened

and if he is likely to become a lame duck prez, he will

try to destroy us with cap and trade. He knows he may

not actually be our messiah, and the power behind him

will be the heir to his destruction. He may just do his

Red Revolutionary job and let another commie Nazi

take over. They have a lot more depth in their ranks

than you might think. Guns fall just at the end, or at

the beginning, whichever way you wish to think of it.

[Guest SUNTZU]

While I am very happy the Court upheld the 2A in McDonald v Chicago, reading through the thread re: posted - no carry is sobering. If malls, restaurants, theaters, etc can issue such rulings (and as private property owners, that is their prerogative) then we have the unhappy task of choosing to boycott them (and that probably won't bother them a lot), violate their edicts (with enormous potential consequences), or not carry when there is no choice but to patronize them. If Wal-Mart, for example, issues a corporate stance prohibiting legal carry (and you can substitute whatever you want for Wal-Mart), then what?

I'm going to shop on line as much as I can to avoid this situation, but that's not an option with groceries or medical visits.

Maybe with this ruling, some businesses will re-evaluate their "no carry" policies, but I won't hold my breath.

In regards to doctors, I view a pistol the same way as defibrillators and heart medicine...its a lifesaver.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thank God the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure Obama and his henchmen and henchwomen are not too happy about it. It's scary how close this decision is, though, and if they put this new female "never been a judge" on the Supreme Court, who knows what will happen to individual rights -- kiss them goodbye. Hopefully, we'll be able to hang on to our guns for a while longer.

Yep. Hopefully the current justices will stay real healthy until 2012 when hopefully we jump from the frying pan back into the fire.

Hopefully the republican senators will insist on a supreme court nominee with a long judicial record. And then filibuster any subsequent nominees which have an anti-freedom judicial record. One can hope anyway.

[Daniel]

It's going to be hard to tell how he deals with this ruling,

but I'll bet anyone he comes out and says that SCOTUS

has made their decision and that he supports the right of the people to own a hunting rifle, or something like that.

He will move on to other altruistic crap before he really

cranks down on firearms, like his biggest worry: losing

his communist congress. His power base is threatened

and if he is likely to become a lame duck prez, he will

try to destroy us with cap and trade. He knows he may

not actually be our messiah, and the power behind him

will be the heir to his destruction. He may just do his

Red Revolutionary job and let another commie Nazi

take over. They have a lot more depth in their ranks

than you might think. Guns fall just at the end, or at

the beginning, whichever way you wish to think of it.

You are one of the craziest people on this board. Just FYI.

[Mark@Sea]

6.8 ain't crazy... but it isn't a lame duck prez or congress that worries me - it's a mad duck prez or congress....