| Author |
Message |
    
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 - 10:11 pm: | 
|
My larger concern is in winning the battle at the cost of the war.
This decision by the SCOTUS in this case further incorporates the 2nd Amendment under Federal Control. This removes the power to regulate (or not regulate) arms at the state level and grants that power to the Federal Government. Texas may choose to have very open regulation of firearms but, because the right has been further incorporated, may be required to enact strict gun control laws as imposed by the federal government.
The citizens of Chicago won the battle, but our rights, and the rights of the individual states, have been further infringed by this decision.
We have discovered that even among the 5 "conservative" judges we have some who fail to understand or follow the Constitution.
Depressing.  |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Kowski,
That nutjob gun control activist you quote is just making up what he wants to hear. Utter baloney. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 10:46 pm: |
|
I suspect that if current confirmation hearings progress to approval then the above 5:4 vote would be 4:5 if it shows up on the docket again. |
Court
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 10:55 pm: |
|
>>>I suspect that if current confirmation hearings progress to approval
I listened to Kagen today and hope I never have to tell that many lies in one day anytime in my life.
She's a smart woman.
When she lies it's transparent as hell.
We're stuck with her. |
B00stzx3
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 12:29 am: |
|
I would like concealed or open carry laws next. Hate Maryland's BS, we have concealed permits, but regular folks can't get them! My Kershaw knife only goes so far, especially when I move back to Baltimore! Thank you SCOTUS... now all citizens need the right to protect themselves. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 12:48 am: |
|
I would like concealed or open carry laws next. Hate Maryland's BS, we have concealed permits, but regular folks can't get them! My Kershaw knife only goes so far, especially when I move back to Baltimore! Thank you SCOTUS... now all citizens need the right to protect themselves.
If enough people in Maryland feel the same way put the pressure on your reps. We did it in Ohio. I took part in at least one open carry protest of course it was legal to open carry then but not conceal carry. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 09:59 am: |
|
Re: SCOTUS appointment:
Has there ever been a previous appointee without any prior judicial bench time at any court level? I thought I heard that this one has had zero time as a judge. If so, what's next, law degree optional? ( I have serious concerns for the future of this country for the next 5+ years)
Re: 2nd Amendment:
Why do I need permission or a written application and permit to do what is supposed to be a stated Right to do. I don't need a permit to prove I'm not a felon nor sex offender, so why do I need permission or proof to carry concealed or openly? I'll leave further discussion to various sites and venues who's focus is on this specific issue. I still believe that getting a CCW permit is a subjugation (sp? term?) of a Constitutionally recognized Right, but I've been told I'm wrong by several with more legal studies than me (yet I've still had reservations about applying for a permit in any place I've lived that had permits). YMMV
Back to bikes for me, or other topics as my inclinations lead.
Anybody got a shovel I can borrow? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 10:04 am: |
|
Many supreme court justices have not been judges prior to their appointment.
GW nominated his head lawyer, who had never been a judge, and she was crucified in the press for not having judicial experience. Her nomination was withdrawn. I don't hear the press complaining about Kagen not having any experience.
If there are any lingering doubts about whether the press leans left, this should clear it up. |
Buellkowski
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 11:48 am: |
|
The questions put before the Supreme Court in...
Heller: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes. (emphasis mine)
McDonald: Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.
These are the only questions resolved by these two cases. Other "infringements" must be addressed in future cases. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2010 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Did robert byrd die the same day the McDonald case was decided?
How fitting it would be that a black man gets the supreme court to give him a little bit of the freedom to protect himself and family that the democratic senator and former KKK member has been afforded most if not all of his life. |
Drkside79
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 01:56 pm: |
|
Chicago aldermen voted unanimously today to approve compromise gun restrictions they hope won’t run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s new standards on gun bans.
The 45-0 vote, coming four days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against the city’s handgun ban, puts in place strict limits on guns.
» Click to enlarge image
Supporters of owning handguns attempt to distract the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Annual Rally.
The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.
The measure prohibits gun shops in Chicago and bars gun owners from so much as stepping outside their homes with a handgun, even if it’s only onto their porches or garages.
The vote might have been unanimous, but it didn’t come without complaint. Aldermen railed against the five Supreme Court justices who ruled against the city, finding that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did,” said Ald. Lorraine Dixon (24th).
Aldermen said they believe it’s “inevitable” that the strict limits now imposed on handgun ownership will face a court challenge from gun-rights supporters but that they felt confident the new ordinance would pass legal muster. |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 03:48 pm: |
|
I will quote a very wise and misunderstood man here:
"We must destroy the Supreme Court."
--Dr. Jack Kevorkian |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 09:05 pm: |
|
Daley is a POS. This new ordnance is just a thinly veiled attempt at a total ban in Chicago. There is no way that banning gun ranges then requiring training at a gun range to own a gun can possibly be seen as an outright ban. Clearly just another attempt at ignoring the Constitution.  |
|
