McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[Guest jackdm3]

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

I thought that was Sun or St.Rick j.

[Mark@Sea]

Reckon the 4 dissenters really don't understand the term, "Right of The People"

Think about it, the liberals were just one vote away from ending a natural right.

Nope, the liberals were one vote away from having their arses handed to them on a plate. The beauty of the second amendment is that you don't really need to use it until they try to take it away. Kind of like the tripwire to a claymore.

[kb4ns]

I thought that was Sun or St.Rick j.

Like you aren't in the running, Jack???

[Guest SUNTZU]

I thought that was Sun or St.Rick j.

Only a little crazy....WE are the music makers...and WE are the dreamers of dreams.

I'm waiting for the spin from the White House. I expect another Imperial Denunciation. I hope someone tells him off again.

[Guest jackdm3]

That certainly came to mind, but every pack of cards has at least two jokers ...

[kb4ns]

every pack of cards has at least two jokers ...

Not every pack of cards...

[seez52]

Nope, the liberals were one vote away from having their arses handed to them on a plate. The beauty of the second amendment is that you don't really need to use it until they try to take it away. Kind of like the tripwire to a claymore.

If only we could get the liberals to see it that way.

I"m more inclined to look at it as we're hanging from a thread. Elections do matter. And if we don't straighten things out when the ballot box is open, then we're gonna have to tug on that trip wire regardless of what the supremes say.

[Guest jackdm3]

Nemo? Mike would hit it!

[mikegideon]

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

Well, actually, I just got of of one of the WLAC trucks, and the radio was tuned to WLAC (go figure). Heard the same stuff coming out of the radio. So, he's not just dreaming it up... he's a P1 listener. Wouldn't bug me so much if our commentators actually believed everything they say, but that's not the object of the game. It's show biz, and they're putting on a show.

AR's my friend, and certainly not the only one I have that buys into it.

[mikegideon]

Like you aren't in the running, Jack???

He's perfectly normal on Planet Jack. He's just not fully acclimated to Earth yet

[mikegideon]

Nemo? Mike would hit it!

I would put money on it

[Guest Eagle Eye]

It's a victory for the Constitution!

and from a former Chicagoan for the first 48 years of my life: About Time!!!

[Raoul]

I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

If I read this correctly it seems that it's a good ruling from the standpoint of reigning in government ability to restrict 2 A rights while at the same time making reasonable 2A restrictions OK. Felons, minors, mentally ill, etc.

However it's also so vague that in what is says about those "reasonable" restrictions that even the majority notes that the lawyers will be at work filing suits to define them.

I think this may be a jobs bill for lawyers in disguise.

[Fallguy]

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.

You might be interested in this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/36341-public-accommodation-properties-have-no-right-block-fundamental-right.html

[Guest Swamprunner]

Woo-Hoo!

Now I can drive through that fetid s**t-hole called Chicago and take my weapon with me. I went up there about six years ago to my son's graduation at Great Lakes and was as nervous as a whore in church.

[Guest stmccann]

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.

From the CNN website:

"The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide."

Part of the majority opinion. Sounds like all of them don't understand the simple concept of "shall not be infringed."

I see it as 9-0 against our rights, because they define what is 'reasonable', not we the people. Just like the Heller decision....

In Liberty -

Sean

[Guest Jamie]

Woo-Hoo!

Now I can drive through that fetid s**t-hole called Chicago and take my weapon with me. I went up there about six years ago to my son's graduation at Great Lakes and was as nervous as a whore in church.

Once again: NOT YET YOU CAN'T.

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision: A Win or a Setback?

"The decision did not explicitly strike down a Chicago law banning handguns, though it did seem to set a course for an eventual overturning of the law. "

There's another court that still has a job to do... the court that sent the issue to SCOTUS to begin with, the 7th circuit.

I'm starting to feel like there's a whole bunch of people who are gonna "jump the gun" and get themselves into a lot'a trouble, 'cause they think something has happened that hasn't yet.

J.

[Guest stmccann]

Think about it, the liberals were just one vote away from ending a natural right.

Well, they could try, but never succeed.

In Liberty -

Sean

[Guest Jamie]

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.

From the CNN website:

"The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun-control measures currently in place nationwide."

Part of the majority opinion. Sounds like all of them don't understand the simple concept of "shall not be infringed."

I see it as 9-0 against our rights, because they define what is 'reasonable', not we the people. Just like the Heller decision....

In Liberty -

Sean

You'll notice I said "limits"?

I never said the ruling completely removes any control of the right to keep and bear arms. It does open things up for people to contest some of those laws that go too far and actually have a leg to stand on. And THAT is what has the gun control advocates wringing their hands as much as anything. Their old arguments of "it's a collective right" or "The 2nd only applies to and limits the Feds" no longer hold water.

And no, "reasonable" hasn't been defined yet... just as "bear" hasn't been covered by SCOTUS yet either.

But now they will have to be.

J.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest SUNTZU]

From REASON magazine

As Jacob Sullum noted below, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in McDonald v. Chicago this morning, ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a major victory for gun rights—as it opens the door for legal challenges to countless state and local gun control laws and finally gives the Second Amendment its due alongside the rest of the Bill of Rights—but it’s not the victory it should have been. That’s because only Justice Clarence Thomas followed the text and history of the Constitution and held that the Second Amendment must be incorporated via the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, not the Due Process Clause.

As Thomas notes in his concurrence,

the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. ...

I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

Read the full McDonald decision here. Read more about Due Process vs. Privilege or Immunities Clause incorporation here.

Note to libertarian history buffs: Thomas cites both Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner in his concurrence.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Here's a great quote from the opinion.

<SUP>

The anti-gun crowd will hate that SCOTUS mentions that crime increased when guns were banned, straight from the statistics of the Chicago Police Department. </SUP>

They certainly WILL hate it, the loons hate anything that has to do with facts and or common sense. They also hate the idea that the people are in charge of the Government and not the other way around. Without hate they would have no life, as crappy as that life may be. Since Hate is such a strong emotion maybe some of them will hate themselves into a coranary.

5-4 is a WIN but common sense says the vote should have been 9-0, I guess that just shows how rare common sense has become these days even in our highest court. That is also scary, as It is kinda like the SEC....One point may give you the win this year but we will play again next year.

I am mostly really very curious as to how wigged out the restrictions Chi-Town tries to put on this.

It is a step folks, a big step in some ways yet a very small step in others but none-the-less a step forward. Depending on just what restrictions are put on it, it may or may not actually help to make those who have little money safer in their homes, those same folks being the ones who most likely live in the most crime afficted areas of the city.

I know a few folks here that even the $200 or so it takes has made them obtaining an HCP nearly impossible, one person I know has been saving change for over a year toward this cause only to have to use it for food from time to time. I really wish I could help the person but I had to save myself for a few months in order to get mine. I then got killer deals from a friend and sold off construction tools I could no longer use to obtain the few defensive tools I have.

My worry in all of this is that Chicago and other places impose fees high enough that those in the most need of home protection will still not be able to obtain it. As far as I understand it, there is nothing stopping the commies from doing such:poop:.

BTW if 6.8 really is crazy, that scares me!... If so I may well need to ask to be committed, I guess I will have to make an appointment with a shrink to get the process started.

[Smith]

Could this effectively end the BATF in relation to gun control? If it is in fact an individual liberty only limited by states then what role can BATF have in any enforcement? I seriously doubt they would see it this way, but it seems pretty clear to me. They should now be refered to as BAT!

[Smith]

What about this thought from left field. Could this effectively end the BATF in relation to gun control? If it is in fact an individual liberty only limited by states then what role can BATF have in any enforcement? I seriously doubt they would see it this way, but it seems pretty clear to me. They should now be referred to as BAT!

Edited to add: as long as it does not cross state lines, which is how they maneuvered in there to begin with.

[Guest jackdm3]

OK.

Sgt. Joe, Jackdm3, Suntzu, strickj, 6.8 AR, ???

Edited June 28, 2010 by jackdm3

[kb4ns]

OK.

Sgt. Joe, Jackdm3, Suntzu, strickj, 2.8 AR, ???

If this is a vote for awesomeness, I'm going with Sgt. Joe!