McDonald v. Chicago SCOTUS Opinion

[Guest jackdm3]

Well, he does write well. And at length. Just hope he'll show at a meet!

[G27]

What about this thought from left field. Could this effectively end the BATF in relation to gun control?

No, Heller would have done that if either of these would - Heller was federal.

This will have basically zero impact on BATFE.

[kb4ns]

Just hope he'll show at a meet!

Well, I have met him, so I can assure you that he does exist!

[Smith]

No, Heller would have done that if either of these would - Heller was federal.

This will have basically zero impact on BATFE.

true but I was thinking that since they essentially stripped the Federal authority and made it clear that it was an individual right limited by the states rights that bills like the ones in Montana and other places would be verified by this ruling.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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

Thanks, Daniel. I'll take that as a compliment:D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I should have used mad duck, also. It does seem more fitting.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

true but I was thinking that since they essentially stripped the Federal authority and made it clear that it was an individual right limited by the states rights that bills like the ones in Montana and other places would be verified by this ruling.

Politically, it probably won't, but it really should, because of your reasoning, Smith. There is no constitiutional justification for the BATFE regulating firearms, except for keeping them out the hands of criminals. There is no legitimate reason why you or I couldn't go into a gun shop or hardware store and buy a machine gun.

It strikes right at the root of the antigunners argument when people like John Lott can demonstrate that these laws restricting gun ownership actually increase crime.

This decision was primarily for handguns, but since it "incorporates", it should eventually apply to all the dumb laws concerning guns.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

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

Now that is an undeserved compliment, and to think when I first saw Jacks list my first thought was that you belonged on it too, Now you have confirmed such.

I WILL make one of the meets Jack I promise.....just been a lot going on here....we almost lost FIL last week and he is still in the Hosp. I have been playing babysitter for all mine and the inlaws so that they can be at the Hosp. It is a tough job but the Hosp creeps me out. But I give you my word I will make one of them.

Now if someone could promise me that the Chi-commies wont deprive the poor folk of their newly reafirmed God Given right to self defense I will feel a whole lot better.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

OK.

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

Aww, come on now:D

[Guest jackdm3]

My apologies! I was thinking .223 at the same time while watching "Polterqeist." The ghosts obviously made me do it. I'll fix.

[mikegideon]

Aww, come on now:D

Hope you noticed Planet Jack demoted you to a BB gun

[Guest jackdm3]

No. A really, REALLY magnum .22, right?

[LagerHead]

Helmke's always good at making lemonade out of lemons.

PUT THE GLASS DOWN! That is NOT lemonade!

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

Brady. 'Nuff said.

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.

Not a snowball's chance in heck. The Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a man growing wheat for his own consumption could be regulated under interstate commerce, so I have no hope for this kind of change.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hope you noticed Planet Jack demoted you to a BB gun

More like a spitball

[USMCJG]

They should now be refered to as BAT!

Well actually, BATE. Don't forget the explosives.

[Guest Jamie]

A good article on what the Heller and McDonald rulings do or don't do:

Fast facts: High court's gun-rights ruling at a glance

This should clear up some of the confusion.

Or add to it...

J.

[mcurrier]

Hopefully, we'll be able to hang on to our guns for a while longer.

This protects my right to own this .

This is what I will use to protect this if it comes down to it.

You can't mess with one without messing with the other.

[Mike.357]

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.

I agree with pretty much most of what he posts.

[Currently]

Now if someone could promise me that the Chi-commies wont deprive the poor folk of their newly reafirmed God Given right to self defense I will feel a whole lot better.

Not the Chi-commies ... maybe the russkies?

FOXNews.com - Feds Bust 10 Alleged Russian Spies in U.S.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Seems like today I saw something about the High Court striking down Chicago's gun ban? Didn't see any details but I'm pretty sure that's what I read on the news banner on CNN.

[Guest PeaShooter]

This picture says it all about the decision:

[Guest Eagle Eye]

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.

Sorry that you don't appreciate Chicago. I lived there most all my life and was stationed at Great Lakes for 4 years.

However, Illinois still has strict gun laws and if you take it with you be sure it is unloaded and not within easy reach until you arrive either at a range or a hunting site.

[MCSCOTT]

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.

X2

The case now goes back to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it could be several months before the case is decided.

Meanwhile, the city is working on new ordinances which have gun ownership restrictions.

New regulations could include gun registration fees, laws prohibiting assault weapons, and a possible requirement that gun owners buy liability insurance.

In the meantime, the city is reminding people that until that happens or a new ordinance is passed, Chicago's handgun ban remains in effect.

Could be several months before anything at all changes to the ban, and you can bet they're going to put it off as long as they can. This could also bring about new laws that everyone should become aware of before they "jump the gun".

[Fallguy]

Reporting from Washington —

The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago's ban on handguns Monday and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe on the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.

The ruling has both local and national implications.

Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C., that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.

In Monday's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.

Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined to form the majority.

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters.

Merged with http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/42081-mcdonald-v-chicago-scotus-opinion.html

[eapking]

I want to know when SCOTUS is going to deal with the words: "bear" and "infringed". Hopefully we'll still have our 5-4 majority by that time.

Sorry, but what part of Heller did the "Gang of 4" not get this time around? So much for Sotomayor being open minded on the 2A. We'll hear the same drivel from Kagan and see her fall into liberal line after confirmation.