7th Circuit Court Ruling On Chicago Gun Ban

[novus collectus]

I don't know if that was three judges or the entire panel but they will ask for reconsideration and request the entire circuit of judges. Then they will appeal to the Supreme Court. I don't think it will make it in until October's term. The new anti gun Sotamayor should be on by then. Then we will have to sweat bullets. Obama may just think he is king and try and undo all the pro gun laws in the nation.

I wish the NY case got there first because if it did then maybe Sotamayor will recuse herself because she was on that lower court.

 

[Boxcab]

Just a side note:

I HAVE yelled "Fire" in a crowded theater, even with law enforcement present and no fire. The law does NOT refrain you from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it does hold you accountable for any injuries/deaths as a result of your actions.

Some still do not get it.

 

[novus collectus]

My first thought was "o God should I even bother?" Then I thought sure lets see what's going on. So I get there and almost the first entry I see is some do-do head spouting off statistics about all the people who are killed with guns etc etc so I decide to sign up and post some real stats from the CDC (or at least more real than the Brady bunch stats)

Guess what? - you can't just sign up and post. It takes one to three days for the moderators to "approve" you. So I'm guessing they will do a little research and find out that I'm one of those gun nuts who like to quote all kinds of factual stuff that's going to cause so much grief on their forum and I either:

a) won't be allowed to post or
b) I'll be allowed to post until some liberatard complains that I'm using NRA spin tactics to distort the truth.

Of course once I start bashing on the Sun for misreporting the facts of their own poll I'm definitely getting shut down.

This should be an interesting experiment to watch.

I think the three day wait is to prevent spammers and bots.

 

[pcfixer]

I think the three day wait is to prevent spammers and bots.

I just registered for the baltimoresun forums. see how long it takes.

Kenny

 

[MDFF2008]

Im suprised the 9th circuit didn't sit en banc when they incorperated it.

 

[Todd v.]

The day the supreme court decides that the Constitution does not necissarily apply, it will be an ugly day..... I hope anyhow. Because if we let them get away with that, it's all over.

 

[ChannelCat]

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

Someone may already have mentiooned this, but the NRA today filed an appeal of the Seventh Court ruling to the SCOTUS

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12549

 

[ezliving]

Someone may already have mentiooned this, but the NRA today filed an appeal of the Seventh Court ruling to the SCOTUS

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12549

I am still looking for the filing.

 

[Kashmir1008]

OK - So let me ask you all this. Humor me cause I'm a bit slow.

The 18th amendment made the manufacture, sale, import and and export of alcohol illegal. It applied to all the sates - not just federal juristrictions.

The 20th amendment says: right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Shall not be denied..." This applies to the citizens, the people of the United States.

So if these Amendments apply to the States, why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Todd v.]

OK - So let me ask you all this. Humor me cause I'm a bit slow.

The 18th amendment made the manufacture, sale, import and and export of alcohol illegal. It applied to all the sates - not just federal juristrictions.

The 20th amendment says: right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Shall not be denied..." This applies to the citizens, the people of the United States.

So if these Amendments apply to the States, why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment?

Because they don't want it to? I mean if it was a law they liked there would be no question but this one they don't.

We're now a nation of mob rule, that whole Republic, rule of law thing is ancient history...

 

[pcfixer]

Look at www.constitution.org

Rights, Powers and Duties
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted.

In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

 

[redduck21502]

Look at www.constitution.org

Rights, Powers and Duties
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potestas stricte interpretatur. A power is strictly interpreted.

In dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia. In cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

That last part from James Madison really contradicts the whole "Living Document" arguement that they like to portray when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. This stuff should be standard reading when a person wants to enter politics. That way they would not be knowingly ignorant of what they are doing.

 

[pcfixer]

That last part from James Madison really contradicts the whole "Living Document" arguement that they like to portray when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. This stuff should be standard reading when a person wants to enter politics. That way they would not be knowingly ignorant of what they are doing.

redduck. I was thinking along the same lines. As I spend more and more
time researching the Founders all this becomes more clear to me.
Huh, guess what, I'm not a politician or lawyer and its evadent to me
what the Constitution means and the Bill of Rights and what individual
'Rights" are.

BASIC PRINCIPLES... freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, ..."
— John Locke, Second Treatise, Ch. 4 § 21.

 

[pcfixer]

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

 

[pcfixer]

Just got this email from HumanEvents.com We know is a load of bull but here is
what is said.

The National Rifle Association sued the City of Chicago, Illinois and Village of Oak Park, Illinois so citizens could protect themselves with handguns.

We lost. Gun ban won. The word came down June 2, 2009.

These two municipalities ban the possession of most handguns. But you are probably thinking we won in Washington, DC with the Heller case didn’t we? Didn’t that clear the right to own a handgun to protect yourself?

No. Here is why:

The courts felt that Washington, DC and the Heller case dealt with law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of state.

In short, courts are deciding the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the entirety of the United States of America.

Beware:

1. This decision will be used around the country to ban you owning a gun.
2. Courts will decide that the 2nd Amendment will only apply to long guns because they better serve the intent of the Founding Fathers in that guns are for a citizen militia and long guns serve that purpose. Therefore handguns are unnecessary to the security of a free State according to the language of the Amendment.
3. States will argue that they are independent of the federal government and can ignore the Bill of Rights, as they successfully did in Chicago.




What is your response?

 

[ezliving]

I am still looking for the filing.

Here we go: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/AppendixcertpetitionNRA-Chicago.pdf

 

[ezliving]

Here is Alan Gura's petition to SCOTUS: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf

 

[Boxcab]

Any chance on this being heard before the SCOUS ajourns in August (I think)?

 

[pcfixer]

Here is Alan Gura's petition to SCOTUS: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf

Thanks. I was wondering how this case would be presented by Alan Gura.

His Question "Presented"..
Whether the Second Ammendment "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is
incorporated as against the States by the 14th Ammendment's Priveges
or Immunties or Due Process Clauses.

Althought I've just read all this, I see Mr Alan Gura makes a very compelling
argument. The idea that the Circuit courts aren't in agreement is one
presentation. There also is disagreements on wheather the states are
incorporated or not, especially with respect to the 1st 8 Ammendments.
His case seems IMHO justified.
He is looking for SCOTUS to overturn the Slaughter-House case and overrule. He says wrongfully decided.

My questions is: What effect will the have on us or the state laws, in states that haven't any language of RTKBA in state consitutions as in Maryland?? ( if he succeeds in winning)
there are sevent that I know of. I have a bunch of thoughts on other issues but more later.

Not sure if we should have another thread on this ...
Moderators... what is your thoughts?

I would like to see the SCOTUS put into writing any registration of firearms is
not constitutional... But we will see.

 

[novus collectus]

Overturning the slaughterhouse cases? Might be funny if the judges that ruled against Heller vote to overturn the Chicago gun ban because it is the chance to overturn the understanding of the Slaughterhouse case.