The McDonald Decision

This is a step in the right direction for sure!

Stephen_Brady, I to would love to see CC in IL soon and your right about the time is NOW!
 
Glad I voted for George W. Bush too. True, if we get even one more liberal judge on the bench, after Kooky Kagan, all is for naught. But, lets celebrate victories when we can! And it is time to celebrate!!!!:)
 
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not theonly constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisionsthat impose restrictions on law enforcement and on theprosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“Theexclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), whichsometimes include setting the guilty free and the danger-ous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that theCourt’s rule “n some unknown number of cases . . . willreturn a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659.
Click to expand...


Another nice nugget. Essentially public safety is not enough to throw out constitutional protections including the RKBA.
 
Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers.
Click to expand...

Mike, I too am just "shocked." :cool:

However, I have read that their ideological differences are based on disagreement as to what the framers' clear intent really was. The more conservative ones lean toward a strict constructionist point of view focusing on the idea that the constitution's basic tenets are unchanging and valid for all time, while the more liberal ones lean toward the view that the constitution is a "living document" and that the framers intended it to be adjust as the country went on. So, in some respect, their decisions were based on both ideological lines and based on the framers' clear intent (or at least their interpretations of the framers' clear intent).
 
Interesting read (in as far as you can call 200 pages in an hour a read). Looks like the decision is really 4-1-1-3. Breyer is trying to overturn Heller, Stephens can live with Heller but doesn't see handguns as necessary (sounds like the argument why FA weapons can be banned); Thomas disagrees with the logic of the majority but "concurs in judgement", a common scheme in the SCOTUS that always rubs me wrong.
 
Five, I think a lot of "strict" states will just have to sharpen their procedures to eliminate "may" type rules. As in "if you follow our tedious process to the letter and meet all requirements, you will get a gun". My feeling is that "concurrence of the local police chief" type rules will be replaced by strict but audit-able background checks.
 
The ruling is charming, and all that, but in Pennsylvania our State Constitution has long recognized that our rights come from God (Article 1, section 1) and that we have the right to self defense (Article 1, section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned").

Looking back in history, that recognition of our right to self defense comes from the backlash against the Quakers who had controlled the State legislature for many decades but were ultimately thrown out of power forever when they refused to appropriate money to defend the colony from attacks by the Indians. The Quakers never regained power in PA politics. Yeah, the anti-gun groups were active, even in the early 1700's.
 
The ruling is charming, and all that, but in Pennsylvania our State Constitution has long recognized that our rights come from God
Click to expand...

You're kidding yourself. Curious about your statement, I went to the Brady site to check PA laws, and find them extremely onerous. It's the "Boil the frog slowly" method where once the laws are in place you just take them as a given. You shouldn't be happy about these restrictions and useless bureaucratic hurdles. This ruling will give citizens in states like PA some help in getting rid of these ridiculous rules.

The fight isn't over. We just got some ammunition to continue the fight.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/PA/
 
Sometimes I think that the main role of the Supreme court isn't to rule decisively but to raise new questions that generate more court cases and most Important of all lots and lots of legal fees for the swarm of lawyers their rulings seem to attract. :barf:

So now there will be hundreds of legal cases filed, and millions in legal fees generated, to determine exactly what the ruling means.
 
Last edited:
I guess that's great for Chicago, but realistically they'll just adopt the NJ method of gun control instead. Start off with lots of paperwork, then move on to a huge wait for background checks, then wait around some more for some administrative type to get it signed off on, then they'll adopt the 1 handgun per month like NJ.

You'll get the gun, but you'll wait 3 months for it

The supreme court won't touch them for it either since they never actually say you can't have a gun unless you fail the background check bs.
 
I'll second that kodiakbeer.

Florida's laws are less restrictive than Pennsylvania's. Someone could buy a handgun at garage sale, load it and put in his glove box, for example. But there's still room for improvement. I'd like to see our state's laws rolled back further.

What's more I want to see those rights extended across state lines. I refuse to visit and spend money in a state/city that does not recognize my God-given rights. For right now principle keeps me in the South and Midwest. There's still hope that someday I can have a New York style pizza in New York or a Chicago style pizza in Chicago, with a 38 in my pocket.
 
I guess that's great for Chicago, but realistically they'll just adopt the NJ method of gun control instead. Start off with lots of paperwork, then move on to a huge wait for background checks, then wait around some more for some administrative type to get it signed off on, then they'll adopt the 1 handgun per month like NJ.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's going to suck, but it's better than what they have now. It's a small step in the right direction. It took decades to roll back the rights of Chicagoans, and it will be decades before they're fully restored.
 
Many states already incorporate the 2nd in their State Constitutions. However they still have restrictions on guns. Most of the change is going to come through action in State legislatures. Just the worst like Chicago and DC total bans are automatically gone.
 
A state preemption law would restore the rights much faster, and there's lots of precedence for that. I'm thinking this next election cycle may be the tipping point in Chicago and we may finally see state preemption and concealed carry on the books in a very few years.
 
The Supremes...

Who ever would have suspected a 5-4 vote on IDEOLOGICAL lines, not lines based on clear intent of the framers.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that a LOT of SC cases are decided by 5-4 votes. And that makes sense when you think about it. The issues have to be pretty controversial and divisive in the first place or else they'd never make it up to that level.

Thank goodness this one was decided the right way. Too many go against us citizens and in favor of "special interests."
 
Gotta give Brady people credit... They certainly have wonderful imaginations when it comes to what is actually happening nationwide...
Click to expand...

You'd think Baghdad Bob was writing their talking points. If nothing else this illustrates that the enemies of freedom aren't going to let a little ink on paper deter them from their obsession- a disarmed America.

The importance of your vote, for the Office of President, is also aptly illustrated by the fine margin by which precious freedom was affirmed.

Kodus to the five that got it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top