SemperFiTexan
New member
And through all of this the bottom feeding lawyers will be getting richer. I wish there were a hunting season on lawyers cause I for one would fill by quota every single season!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States
- Thread starter Ruger .454
- Start date
B
Bikenut
Guest
We can make all the lawyer jokes we want... and many of them are quite funny... but, and I am NOT a lawyer, it sure is good to have one representing you in a courtroom!
Let's remember and show appreciation for the lawyers who argued the McDonald and Heller cases. We wouldn't have the victories we now have without them.
SemperFiTexan
New member
When the lawyers start taking 2A cases on pro bono then I will have some respect for them. Our legal system is so confusing and twisted that the average citizen has no choice but to pay for legal advice. The courts are courst of law and not courts of justice. I respect anybody's right to feel all warm and fuzzy for lawyers, and I will maintain my firm belief that our country would be better off if the laws were clear and simple so that any citizen of our great nation could be their own representative in court.
utbagpiper
Banned
Great progun editorial in Las Vegas Review Journal...and warning on Kagen
Full editorial at:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/under-the-gun-97461424.html
Excerpts:
...
The court's four left-wing justices found no constitutional grounds to toss out Chicago's handgun ban, despite the Second Amendment's edict that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Notable was the vote by newest Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who swore in Senate hearings last year that she understood gun ownership was an individual right. Justice Sotomayor voted Monday that Chicago's complete ban on private handgun ownership was just fine with her.
...
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, for example, promptly promised to adopt all the regulations that Washington, D.C., adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. The Washington Post recently sent a reporter with a spotless record to obtain a D.C. handgun permit, determining that the quest involved paying fees amounting to more than $550, making four distinct trips to the police station, and taking two different tests.
Chicago officials announced they plan to do the same, while adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance to cover any incidents that might arise from use of the weapon.
Imagine any mayor in the United States saying he intends to impose $550 in fees and other procedural roadblocks before residents can purchase a "freedom of religion permit," so they might attend the church of their choice.
The court on Monday certainly moved in the right direction. But as GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia warned, "The small margin by which this decision was reached also highlights the need for Supreme Court justices who fully appreciate the basic rights ensured by the Constitution. Solicitor General Elena Kagan's previous work to push the Clinton administration's anti-Second Amendment agenda does not inspire confidence that she would use a seat on our highest court to protect the rights of the American people."
Oh, Ms. Kagan -- now undergoing Senate hearings on her Supreme Court nomination -- will doubtless now assure us she stands by the entire Bill of Rights ... just as Sonia Sotomayor did.
Full editorial at:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/under-the-gun-97461424.html
Excerpts:
...
The court's four left-wing justices found no constitutional grounds to toss out Chicago's handgun ban, despite the Second Amendment's edict that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Notable was the vote by newest Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who swore in Senate hearings last year that she understood gun ownership was an individual right. Justice Sotomayor voted Monday that Chicago's complete ban on private handgun ownership was just fine with her.
...
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, for example, promptly promised to adopt all the regulations that Washington, D.C., adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. The Washington Post recently sent a reporter with a spotless record to obtain a D.C. handgun permit, determining that the quest involved paying fees amounting to more than $550, making four distinct trips to the police station, and taking two different tests.
Chicago officials announced they plan to do the same, while adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance to cover any incidents that might arise from use of the weapon.
Imagine any mayor in the United States saying he intends to impose $550 in fees and other procedural roadblocks before residents can purchase a "freedom of religion permit," so they might attend the church of their choice.
The court on Monday certainly moved in the right direction. But as GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia warned, "The small margin by which this decision was reached also highlights the need for Supreme Court justices who fully appreciate the basic rights ensured by the Constitution. Solicitor General Elena Kagan's previous work to push the Clinton administration's anti-Second Amendment agenda does not inspire confidence that she would use a seat on our highest court to protect the rights of the American people."
Oh, Ms. Kagan -- now undergoing Senate hearings on her Supreme Court nomination -- will doubtless now assure us she stands by the entire Bill of Rights ... just as Sonia Sotomayor did.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
This ruling clarifies that the comment in heller was just an example and not restrictive.
Ruger .454
Regular Member
Authoritative article by Clayton E. Cramer, who was sited in both McDonald and Heller:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lessons-from-mcdonald-v-chicago/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lessons-from-mcdonald-v-chicago/
Ruger .454
Regular Member
4 Days after the McDonald decision, new Chicago gun restrictions pass on 45 - 0 vote
Chicago City Council passes new Daley gun restrictions 45-0.
Written by Tactical-Life.com. Author Archive »
The Chicago City Council today passed Mayor Richard Daley’s new set of gun restrictions 45-0.
The swift approval came just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively tossed out Chicago’s longstanding ban on handguns. Daley introduced the gun restrictions Thursday and aldermen approved the ordinance about 24 hours later.
“The decision that the Supreme Court made was not in keeping with the best interest of our citizens,” said Ald. Daniel Solis, 25th, in keeping with comments by several of his colleagues.
“People say we’re restricting weapons, we are not restricting weapons,” said Ald. James Balcer, 11th. “I don’t know how anyone can say that, when as of right now you can have a number or rifles, a number of shotguns. . . You can buy one pistol a month. What is wrong with that? If you can’t protect your home with that armament, you shouldn’t be here. You shouldn’t be here.
“This is a good ordinance, and it abides by the constitution. People can defend the inside of their homes. No one is seizing your weapons,” Balcer added.
Ald. Rey Colon, 35th, whose brother was fatally shot in 1979, said the justices on the nation’s top court don’t understand the reality of the inner city.
“I understand the right to bear arms, but I also understand parents crying in their sleep,” he said.
After today’s vote, it will be a while before any new guns bought under the ordinance show up in city residences.
It will be 10 days before the new ordinance becomes city law. Then anyone who wants to get a handgun must obtain a Chicago firearm permit, and the Police Department has up to four months to process the applications.
To apply for a permit, applicants must provide a certificate indicating they have passed a firearms training course with four hours in the classroom and an hour on the range.
People have committed violent crimes, or have two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, will not be allowed to get the permits.
The restrictions could trigger a legal challenge from at least some of the pro-gun forces that put the gun ban on its death bed.
After aldermen approved the city’s controversial parking meter lease less than 47 hours after Mayor Richard Daley’s administration presented it to them, several said they would not again be rushed so fast in making major decisions.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Chicago City Council passes new Daley gun restrictions 45-0.
Written by Tactical-Life.com. Author Archive »
The Chicago City Council today passed Mayor Richard Daley’s new set of gun restrictions 45-0.
The swift approval came just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively tossed out Chicago’s longstanding ban on handguns. Daley introduced the gun restrictions Thursday and aldermen approved the ordinance about 24 hours later.
“The decision that the Supreme Court made was not in keeping with the best interest of our citizens,” said Ald. Daniel Solis, 25th, in keeping with comments by several of his colleagues.
“People say we’re restricting weapons, we are not restricting weapons,” said Ald. James Balcer, 11th. “I don’t know how anyone can say that, when as of right now you can have a number or rifles, a number of shotguns. . . You can buy one pistol a month. What is wrong with that? If you can’t protect your home with that armament, you shouldn’t be here. You shouldn’t be here.
“This is a good ordinance, and it abides by the constitution. People can defend the inside of their homes. No one is seizing your weapons,” Balcer added.
Ald. Rey Colon, 35th, whose brother was fatally shot in 1979, said the justices on the nation’s top court don’t understand the reality of the inner city.
“I understand the right to bear arms, but I also understand parents crying in their sleep,” he said.
After today’s vote, it will be a while before any new guns bought under the ordinance show up in city residences.
It will be 10 days before the new ordinance becomes city law. Then anyone who wants to get a handgun must obtain a Chicago firearm permit, and the Police Department has up to four months to process the applications.
To apply for a permit, applicants must provide a certificate indicating they have passed a firearms training course with four hours in the classroom and an hour on the range.
People have committed violent crimes, or have two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, will not be allowed to get the permits.
The restrictions could trigger a legal challenge from at least some of the pro-gun forces that put the gun ban on its death bed.
After aldermen approved the city’s controversial parking meter lease less than 47 hours after Mayor Richard Daley’s administration presented it to them, several said they would not again be rushed so fast in making major decisions.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
The main victory here
While we may debate the signifigance of this SCOTUS decicsion and its impact on the 2A movement, there is no doubt that the linchpin of the Brady argument has been destroyed. "The Right of the People" means your right and my right, not the right of the crooks we are forced to chose to the State Legislature. It is now officially NOT THE "NATIONAL GUARD".
What was that old Clint Eastwood movie? Where they set off explosives in the dam and it seemed to be of no effect, but then a damp stain spread across the face of the dam; and soom the catastophe (for the Nazis) snowballed?
You Brady Bunchers who monitor this site - oh yes, we know you are here - behold the wet stain spreading across the fiction you have erected. Hope you remembered to bring your water-wings. Bon Voyage, pendejos.
While we may debate the signifigance of this SCOTUS decicsion and its impact on the 2A movement, there is no doubt that the linchpin of the Brady argument has been destroyed. "The Right of the People" means your right and my right, not the right of the crooks we are forced to chose to the State Legislature. It is now officially NOT THE "NATIONAL GUARD".
What was that old Clint Eastwood movie? Where they set off explosives in the dam and it seemed to be of no effect, but then a damp stain spread across the face of the dam; and soom the catastophe (for the Nazis) snowballed?
You Brady Bunchers who monitor this site - oh yes, we know you are here - behold the wet stain spreading across the fiction you have erected. Hope you remembered to bring your water-wings. Bon Voyage, pendejos.
Dreamer
Regular Member
Depends on what kind of minority you're talking about. If someone wants to claim the special rights and privileges afforded to Native Americans, they DO have to have a "permit". If you don't have a card that officially declares you to be a member of a recognized tribe, you can't claim Native American benefits and rights...
Personally, I find this particular "permit" every bit as egregious as the ones for the 2A. There are tens of thousands of Native Americans here in NC that can legally check the "Native American" box on government forms, and yet the BIA and DoI STILL hasn't recognized them as an "officially recognized tribe", so they don't get any of the benefits of other NA peoples...
Requiring a permit for the exercise of a right isn't just unconstitutional, it's immoral...
Ruger .454
Regular Member
WHAT has been destroyed when four days after the City of Chicago loses the McDonald case, the Chicago City Council votes 45 to 0 to institute draconian gun controls? The fight is far, far from over. Heller and McDonald were only the preliminaries. Gloat not. The real work is yet ahead of us.
B
Bikenut
Guest
I've been doing a little reading and I'd like some comments from others on the following excerpt from the Supreme Court's decision....
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO
Syllabus
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
The Supreme Court's ruling held that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms (yes, they covered carrying when they said "keep and bear arms") for the purpose of self defense applies to the States as well as to the Federal government.
Ok... all well and good... since now every gun control law is open to legal scrutiny... but...
I'm nervous about the for the purpose of self defense part since a quick search of dictionary's for the meaning of "self defense" seems to indicate that self defense only applies for defense against other individuals... not governments or government entities....
(I have not as yet found a legal definition of the term "self defense" in and of itself..... help is appreciated on this.)
So... did the Supreme Court's decisions (both Heller and McDonald) just strip out the Founding Father's intent for the 2nd Amendment to have the purpose of a populace as a whole (admittedly made up of individuals) defending itself against a tyrannical government?
Could this decision open the door to government limiting the availability (or legality) of certain "arms" to only those "arms" needed/useful/intended for the purpose of self defense? Perhaps an AWB that would be impossible to fight on legal grounds? Or D.C.'s and Chicago's draconian ordinances being based not upon the 2nd Amendment but the Supreme Court's wording of for the purpose of self defense.
Or am I reading it all wrong... or reading it way to much... or just reading way too much into it?
I know one thing... I have been trying to look at this decision from every angle I can think of and now have a terrible headache reading and trying to understand all this... ummm... stuff.:shocker:
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO
Syllabus
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
The Supreme Court's ruling held that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms (yes, they covered carrying when they said "keep and bear arms") for the purpose of self defense applies to the States as well as to the Federal government.
Ok... all well and good... since now every gun control law is open to legal scrutiny... but...
I'm nervous about the for the purpose of self defense part since a quick search of dictionary's for the meaning of "self defense" seems to indicate that self defense only applies for defense against other individuals... not governments or government entities....
(I have not as yet found a legal definition of the term "self defense" in and of itself..... help is appreciated on this.)
So... did the Supreme Court's decisions (both Heller and McDonald) just strip out the Founding Father's intent for the 2nd Amendment to have the purpose of a populace as a whole (admittedly made up of individuals) defending itself against a tyrannical government?
Could this decision open the door to government limiting the availability (or legality) of certain "arms" to only those "arms" needed/useful/intended for the purpose of self defense? Perhaps an AWB that would be impossible to fight on legal grounds? Or D.C.'s and Chicago's draconian ordinances being based not upon the 2nd Amendment but the Supreme Court's wording of for the purpose of self defense.
Or am I reading it all wrong... or reading it way to much... or just reading way too much into it?
I know one thing... I have been trying to look at this decision from every angle I can think of and now have a terrible headache reading and trying to understand all this... ummm... stuff.:shocker:
eye95
Well-known member
I don't think any court will ever recognize that one of the reasons that the RKBA exists is to allow to populace at large to defend themselves against a government (of which the court is a part) that has given over to tyranny. That does not mean that the right does not exist for that purpose or that the individuals speaking for the court do not think it does.
It derives from the practicality that no court will ever say that the RKBA exists to possibly be used against them.
It derives from the practicality that no court will ever say that the RKBA exists to possibly be used against them.
B
Bikenut
Guest
I'm well aware that true "rights" exist regardless of how much those in power attempt to squash them. We are in agreement on that.
Yes, I understand that no court... or any part of government... would ever admit ... or give credence.. to anything that might curtail their power.
What I was attempting to explain was that the 2nd Amendment language used to be absolute in that the people had the right to keep and bear arms... period... there were no limitations as to the "keep" and "bear" or "arms" parts contained within the wording of the 2nd Amendment. But now, if I'm reading the Heller and McDonald decisions correctly, the 2nd Amendment has been limited to keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of self defense.
And because of that new limitation all sorts of laws (infringements) become legal "reasonable restrictions" that may be able to stand up to scrutiny under the new for the purpose of self defense interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Or.. as is very well possible... I'm reading it wrong.. or reading too much into it. Which is why I wanted comments on that perspective.
But if I am reading it right then many of D.C.'s and Chicago's (with more cities, villages, counties, States, to follow) draconian laws just might withstand scrutiny if they meet the criteria of not restricting the purpose of self defense.
eye95
Well-known member
That the court specifically mentioned exercising the right for self-defense does not preclude other reasons to keep or bear. We don't really think that the right to carry to hunt is gone?
Also, the court in Heller only really affirmed the right to keep. In McDonald they specifically said that that reference did not preclude the right to bear.
Mentioning a specific right does not invalidate those not mentioned.
Also, the court in Heller only really affirmed the right to keep. In McDonald they specifically said that that reference did not preclude the right to bear.
Mentioning a specific right does not invalidate those not mentioned.
Dragan67
New member
SCOTUS and the 2nd
Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious where the Felonious Five like to store all their eggs (legal and otherwise). I feel that it would be a big mistake for the 2nd Amendment Rights community to make the assumption that the Supremes have any regard for either The Law or The People. The proof is all laid out before us in cases like Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizen's United (2010). Only the Rights of Incorporated Persons are ascendant at this time, and although the trend of the 'conventional wisdom' (provided solely by Corporate Media, I might add) at this point believes that SCOTUS has protected the Individual's right to Keep and Bear Arms, I'm quite concerned that we are going to get a taste of an armed corporate culture in the near future. What the recent Supreme Court decision has really allowed for is the creation of private armies by those with the means with which to do so. Thereby we can taste of the philosophical spirit of robber baron Jay Gould who was quoted as saying that he, "...never worried about the lower classes because (he could) always hire one half to kill the other."
And there is yet another precedent in the legal history of the United States that should always be referenced under circumstances such as the ones we've seen so recently.
The Jacksonian Era
(1824 - 1840)
“The Trail of Tears”
· In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which forced Native Americans to move to lands west of the Mississippi River.
· The state of Georgia began to take land belonging to the Cherokee nation, in order to provide more land for farmers. (Actually because of a cooked up 'Gold Discovery')
· The Cherokees brought the state of Georgia to court.
· The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Cherokees in 1832.
· However, Pres. Andrew Jackson allowed the state of Georgia to continue to seize Cherokee land, stating, “John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
· In 1838, forced at gunpoint by the U.S. Army, the Cherokees marched from Georgia to a reservation in Oklahoma.
· Thousands of Cherokees died on the journey, which became known as the “Trail of Tears”.
With the hastily enacted and ill-considered USA Patriot Act still in override of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all of this talk of the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment ruling merely leaves us all (figuratively) in the same shoes that the Cherokee Nation had to trudge toward present-day Oklahoma in.
In other words, The Emperor has no clothes.
Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious where the Felonious Five like to store all their eggs (legal and otherwise). I feel that it would be a big mistake for the 2nd Amendment Rights community to make the assumption that the Supremes have any regard for either The Law or The People. The proof is all laid out before us in cases like Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizen's United (2010). Only the Rights of Incorporated Persons are ascendant at this time, and although the trend of the 'conventional wisdom' (provided solely by Corporate Media, I might add) at this point believes that SCOTUS has protected the Individual's right to Keep and Bear Arms, I'm quite concerned that we are going to get a taste of an armed corporate culture in the near future. What the recent Supreme Court decision has really allowed for is the creation of private armies by those with the means with which to do so. Thereby we can taste of the philosophical spirit of robber baron Jay Gould who was quoted as saying that he, "...never worried about the lower classes because (he could) always hire one half to kill the other."
And there is yet another precedent in the legal history of the United States that should always be referenced under circumstances such as the ones we've seen so recently.
The Jacksonian Era
(1824 - 1840)
“The Trail of Tears”
· In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which forced Native Americans to move to lands west of the Mississippi River.
· The state of Georgia began to take land belonging to the Cherokee nation, in order to provide more land for farmers. (Actually because of a cooked up 'Gold Discovery')
· The Cherokees brought the state of Georgia to court.
· The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Cherokees in 1832.
· However, Pres. Andrew Jackson allowed the state of Georgia to continue to seize Cherokee land, stating, “John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
· In 1838, forced at gunpoint by the U.S. Army, the Cherokees marched from Georgia to a reservation in Oklahoma.
· Thousands of Cherokees died on the journey, which became known as the “Trail of Tears”.
With the hastily enacted and ill-considered USA Patriot Act still in override of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all of this talk of the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment ruling merely leaves us all (figuratively) in the same shoes that the Cherokee Nation had to trudge toward present-day Oklahoma in.
In other words, The Emperor has no clothes.
KansasMustang
Regular Member
It's not about whether there will be crime or not. Just like the Obamacare is not about health care. It's about POWER. If they can LEGALLY disarm us then they can control us. They (orogressives) want to control every aspect of our lives. While the 2A still stands we still can fight for our liberty, just me sayin' it.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Hunting is a privilege licensed.
eye95
Well-known member
I thought I was on your ignore list. Can't resist, huh?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Not just you... there are many more who understand what the end game of the Leftist elitist progressives is... total control one country at a time eventually paving the way for an Emperor of the Earth. And there are more people every day who are waking up.... which is why the progressive agenda is being pushed so hard and so fast here in the U.S. ... it MUST be accomplished before a new Congress convenes in January of next year.. or those who are resisting will slowly put a stop to the rise of a new era of the same old thing.... the common unwashed masses working off their asses for the benefit of the anointed ruling elite.
I've begun to think of the Leftist mindset as an entity all of it's own.. similar to the Borg of Star Trek fame. Inexorably marching forth assimilating everything in it's path, taking control of everything and everyone, gladly sacrificing individual members for the good of the collective (the agenda).
And, like the crew of the starship Enterprise, we fight those individual members thinking we are defending ourselves and everything we hold dear never realizing that as long as we fight individual battles we are losing the real war... and that war is a war of minds, a war that is being won by the collective insinuating it's agenda into our schools and media where minds are being filled with collective thinking, attitudes, and beliefs.... truly being "assimilated".
But... resistance is NOT futile. The tide is turning because on some level everyone, especially the Leftists, understand that guns equal freedom from oppression and control... and the opportunity to resist being "assimilated" into the controlled collective. Which is why the Leftists absolutely MUST clamp down on... or eliminate... the ability of the unwashed common folk to "keep and bear arms".
Because a man or woman with a gun can resist being "assimilated" and controlled.
With all that in mind it is no surprise to me that in the wake of the McDonald v Chicago decision draconian gun control measures instantly reared their ugly head. The Leftists understand that this landmark decision means slow incremental gun control measures can now be challenged and defeated so a new tactic is being used... the tactic of quickly flooding the scene with everything but the kitchen sink knowing most of it will fall...... but some of it will remain in effect. And, to the Leftist, even a little that stood the challenge means a little more control... and the opportunity to keep on flooding.. and flooding.. and flooding.. until darn near everything they started out with will end up withstanding challenges... and they still win in the end...