Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Benelli Forums
LeoAtrox

McDonald v. Chicago: DONE

Recommended Posts

with 214 pages, I am not getting through that in a while!... if ever!

 

What is the summary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The summary is that 5 out of 9 of our Supreme Court Justicies think our rights should apply even if we don't live in Washington, D.C.. (The other 4 are idiots. :p) The Second Amendment Foundation wins another one.

 

This ruling is probably the greatest ruling on the Second Amendment in US history. It will have the greatest impact. It means that every American living within the United States has the right to keep and bear arms. California (unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership) and Illinois (no right to carry) laws will soon be targeted. This ruling is tremendous. It is a HUGE win. The only question is how exactly it will be applied in future cases.

Edited by LeoAtrox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 14th amendment is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to the people of the USA. (it was written for the purposes/agenda of the banksters) Relying on the 14th amendment for your RKBA protections is NOT good. (the Constitution confers no rights) I'd be very cautious about 'celebrating' this 'victory'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 14th amendment is possibly the worst thing that ever happened to the people of the USA. (it was written for the purposes/agenda of the banksters) Relying on the 14th amendment for your RKBA protections is NOT good. (the Constitution confers no rights) I'd be very cautious about 'celebrating' this 'victory'.

 

Be cautious, sure. But who cares why the Second Amendment has finally been applied to States and local municipalities? Celebrate the fact that it finally has been!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be cautious, sure. But who cares why the Second Amendment has finally been applied to States and local municipalities? Celebrate the fact that it finally has been!

 

Are you suggesting the ends justifies the means???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you suggesting the ends justifies the means???

 

I'm saying the means are the means regardless of how you feel about the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment has changed. It's not at issue. What is at issue is the Second Amendment, and the right result has come of this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying the means are the means regardless of how you feel about the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment has changed. It's not at issue. What is at issue is the Second Amendment, and the right result has come of this case.

 

Exactly.

 

Hopefully NY will be getting some love soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying the means are the means regardless of how you feel about the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing about the Fourteenth Amendment has changed. It's not at issue. What is at issue is the Second Amendment, and the right result has come of this case.

 

It makes NO difference as to how I *feel* about the 14th amendment - it is what it is, a vehicle for facilitating voluntary servitude via the status of 'U.S. citizen' (as opposed to 'an inhabitant of a state').

 

Anyone who relies on the 14th amendment for ANYTHING has screwed themselves to epic proportions. In the case of RKBA the issue is transformed from one of an unalienable, natural, God-given right of self-defense to a 'civil right' granted by the corporate state (and that which is 'granted' can be revoked).

 

This sums it up:

 

"Those that are unaware, are unaware, of being unaware." --Victor Issac Carson

 

The term for this is anosognosia which is a condition in which a person who suffers from a disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability and it is very real.

 

It will be a bona fide 'victory' when yellow sheets are done away with.

Edited by Sukhoi_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people vote for the likes of Nancy Pelosi & that Bloomberg nutcase and they actually get elected someone had to vote for them and even Rudy was nuts on gun issues The Govenator did no one any help on the left coast either? Individual states will appeal those decisions and i hope they get shot down again, it's about time the chosen few States get with the overall program and leave the Clinton ban BS where it belongs which is in the garbage along with that blue dress everyone should read the 2nd ammendment and all live by same laws in all 50?:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the case of RKBA the issue is transformed from one of an unalienable, natural, God-given right of self-defense to a 'civil right' granted by the corporate state (and that which is 'granted' can be revoked).

 

Well, I can't argue with that ... Which is why I celebrate these decisions as prolonging my opportunity to exercise my rights and stock up on boom-sticks. I'm not saying that we can rest on our laurels now that the SCOTUS has incorporated the Second Amendment; but I am still pleased that it has done so and it does relieve the great weight on our shoulders significantly.

Edited by LeoAtrox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I can't argue with that ... Which is why I celebrate these decisions as prolonging my opportunity to exercise my rights and stock up on boom-sticks. I'm not saying that we can rest on our laurels now that the SCOTUS has incorporated the Second Amendment; but I am still pleased that it has done so and it does relieve the great weight on our shoulders significantly.

 

It appears to me that you are suffering from the cherished delusions that a branch of the feral govt. *really* does care about us 'small people' and this decision won't be used against us. From what I gather about this decision, 'reasonable restrictions' (or however it was referred to) are perfectly acceptable to this court and from that we can expect to see 'licensing to demonstrate *competency*' (a license is permission to do something that would otherwise be 'illegal', IOW 'permission granted' and anything granted by the corporate state can be revoked) as a 'reasonable restriction' along with further possible attacks on the ownership of those evil black guns (who needs a 'high capacity' gun anyway??? the cops are always a phone call away) and certainly a 'closing' of 'the gunshow loophole' along with private sales within a state.

 

There is nothing here to 'celebrate' or be pleased about. Think of it as one step forward and four steps back. Indeed, this has opened the door to all manner of nonsense and mischief.

 

FYI: the nooz media persists in calling RKBA 'a civil right'. Only slaves have 'civil rights'.

Edited by Sukhoi_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case told the States that they cannot override the Constitution. Did it give permission for everyone to go buy a gun and strap it on their side, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to waste too much time trying to explain why I'm excited. I am. If you aren't, then that's your choice. I wish you'd be a bit more optimistic; but there's room in this world for other points of view. More power to you, friend.

Edited by LeoAtrox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray! Even though I don't live in one of those "states," I'm glad that the citizens there might have their gun rights back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that "reasonable restrictions" dosent mean that we will be restricted to single shot weapons in the future. And who needs actual cartridge ammo anyways? Only black powder weapons from now on. That seems "reasonable" right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope that "reasonable restrictions" dosent mean that we will be restricted to single shot weapons in the future. And who needs actual cartridge ammo anyways? Only black powder weapons from now on. That seems "reasonable" right?

 

Nope. Not even if I can have a blunderbuss. (And I do want me a blunderbuss.) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost through reading all 214 pages. While it is positive, it can still be restricted as the scope of this decision centered on having a handgun in the home.

 

The states are still free to further restrict firearms outside the home which will no doubt bring about more civil cases for the supreme court to rule on.

 

The problem is most of the justices believe as has been decided through previous legal precedent the 2nd and other original amendments to the constitution applied strictly to the federal government and not to the states. In essence, the amendments tell the federal government these are our god given rights and you can't restrict them. I don't believe the founders were concerned about the states' overly restricting their god given rights as their focus was on preventing a new government from doing so.

 

The 14th Amendment came about after the civil war when newly freed blacks and white Republicans supportive of abolition were being disarmed and killed by local militas and police authorities largely in the southern states. This situation prompted congress to pass the 14th Amendment which in essence made it illegal for state militias to disarm blacks or whites. White citizens in bloody Kansas were also disarmed for different reasons and that only added fuel to the fire. There's a whole lot more to it than this but these are a few of the historical points referenced in the decision.

 

Justice Stevens clearly believes guns do more harm to society than good while Justice Scalia believes just the opposite. This truly is a historic supreme court decision and I am frankly disturbed by the views of some of the justices.

 

Particularly, those who believe we should mold our laws to fit a more global environment. Citing a law should be one which is "reasonable to a civilized society".

 

Problem with that is when you look at all the rights American citizens currently possess, 5th Amendment etc. no other country in existence offers it's citizens the same degree of protections. So, we would in essence be diluting our own protections or liberties if we followed that line of reasoning.

 

If we are to say a nation is "civilized" based on the scope and depth of personal liberties afforded its citizens, then we are essentially the only true civilized nation left in the world and our laws should be based on our constitution, history, and traditions not Germany's or France's, or England's, etc.

 

Scary to think this is only a 5-4 ruling. Should the balance of power in the Supreme Court tip towards the liberal side, much of this could be undone in the future. In fact, Justice Stevens in his dissent pointed out this ruling is contrary in some ways to over 100 years of legal precedents by the supreme court. Stay vigilant folks.

 

Your supreme court thought of the day:

 

Would you go to a doctor who had no medical experience?

Would you trust your court case to an attorney who had never before practiced law?

Would you trust the maintenance of your car or truck to a mechanic who has never turned a wrench?

 

Do you believe a supreme court justice is a position of importance at least equal to these three professions?

 

If so, would you appoint a person who has never been a judge to a lifetime position on the supreme court? Your Senate is in the process of doing that right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knew that it was going to be a 5-4 ruling just like Heller. Chicago had already admitted defeat months before the ruling. What surprised me was that Sotomayor was able to rule on this. She was the 7th district circuit judge who ruled against this and sent this to the SCOTUS. I thought judges were not allowed to rule on the same case twice? Even at a higher level? What to be afraid of is that if one of the 5 (that ruled for this) retires or dies, and another anti 2A judge gets on there.

 

I think it will be decades before we see any real results on this ruling at the state level, unless they try to implement the Clinton ban again at the federal level. All this did was open the door for more lawsuits and more years of waiting for a right that we should have had all along. I want to see what is going to happen about "evil gun" bans and magazine bans in all the states that have them. How many rounds in a magazine until you step on someones constitutional rights? Did the founding fathers say that we are only allowed 10 rounds, with loaded chamber indicators and magazine disconects? Is it a constitutional right to have a pistol grip on a semi auto center fire rifle with a detachable mag?

 

The new battle ground in the future will be ammo. Sure you can have all of the handguns you want, but you cant have any ammo for them. Thats constitutional right? The SCOTUS said that we cant ban handguns but we still can ban ammo. Oh wait we are not banning ammo, you can only have one round per month because thats all anyone really needs any way. Oh and by the way you can only have one handgun now. Who needs more than one? That wouldnt be fair to all the people that are disabled and only have one hand.

 

And why stop with the 2nd A might as well go with the 1st A too. So you better tell Rupert Murdoch that he can only own one newspaper and one news channel now. 10 day waiting period? Nah, lets just make it a year now. We didnt say that you couldnt have a handgun, just not until 2011, OK? Is there a waiting period for free speech? What about the 4th and 5th? Sorry you were out side the 10 day waiting period so you dont have the right for self incrimination or illegal searches. In fact you only get one per month and you already used it earlier in the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What surprised me was that Sotomayor was able to rule on this. She was the 7th district circuit judge who ruled against this and sent this to the SCOTUS. I thought judges were not allowed to rule on the same case twice? Even at a higher level?

 

She absolutely is allowed to rule in the case. Usually a justice in that position would abstain from casting a vote on the issue, but there isn't a requirement to do so. I think she should have abstained too; but she's a Supreme Court Justice now, and is (and should be) above politics. So she can vote on whatever cases she has heard, even if there is an apparent conflict of interest.

 

What is more suprising is that the liberal justices all voted against incorporation, and against previous court precedence. Liberal judges have generally been in favor of incorporation, and conservatives have been against it; but this case went the other way. I guess legal principals took a back seat to moral beliefs in this case. That, and the fact that the liberal justices ignored past precedence, is very troubling. If we cannot trust the Supreme Court to rule on the basis of the law without regard to personal emotions and political agendas, then there is a world of hurt coming to this nation sooner rather than later.

 

The new battle ground in the future will be ammo. Sure you can have all of the handguns you want, but you cant have any ammo for them. Thats constitutional right?

 

Past legal precedence puts ammunition within constitutional protections. The ammunition is a functional component of a firearm, and therefore a ban on ammunition is tantamount to a ban on firearms. There is room for "reasonable restrictions" under the law--as with any firearm or firearm component--but nobody can agree on what what is "reasonable". (Like "common sense.") And, again, when the Supreme Court stops caring about past precedence, things can change pretty quick.

Edited by LeoAtrox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...