Victory for Gun Owners!

Does anyone find it ironic that the first SCOTUS case concerning incorporation was a lawsuit against Chicago, called Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy RR Co. v. Chicago and now, what is essentially the last act of incorporation is MacDonald v. Chicago? WTF, Chicago? Get with the fucking program, already!!!
 
WinterBorn said:
Its a big one. This gives us two SCOTUS rulings to back the 2nd amendment as an individual right.
Click to expand...
With a proper case built 3. US v Miller can be worked as a huge victory on our part if someone presents it properly and has a good case behind it. With the Heller and McDonald precedents I expect this to happen.
 
WinterBorn said:
Its a big one. This gives us two SCOTUS rulings to back the 2nd amendment as an individual right.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the one where they ruled that we, the public, should not have an expectation for the Police to protect us from everythng and that we have a responsibility to act in our best interest; ie; defense.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Don't forget the one where they ruled that we, the public, should not have an expectation for the Police to protect us from everythng and that we have a responsibility to act in our best interest; ie; defense.
Click to expand...

True, that is a key point to remember. And that can be used in the future.
 
WinterBorn said:
True, that is a key point to remember. And that can be used in the future.
Click to expand...

July 29th is coming up and on that day the bill goes into affect, in AZ, where unless you are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, you can legally carry concealed without having a CCW.
 
This picture made my day

brady.jpg
 
Threedee said:
What an awesome Monday. Byrd dead, and the SCOTUS comes through on this. Sweet!
Click to expand...

You know,,, I woke up with a back ach,,, and after a while the good news seemed to help a lot!

I hope this isn't going to turn out to be the Al Bundy effect.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Hey Soc, how do you think Murdoch v. commonwealth of PA will work on states with open carry bans or license requirements?
Click to expand...
No idea because while the court have found outright bans are unconstitutional, they hve provided no guidance as to how far laws can go. I can guess that on an open carry case the majority might lose Kennedy, I mean he went from siding with the majority on the ban to siding with the majority on the Hastings student group case. That is wide swathe of judicial philosophy. I could have told you before the cases were announced that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were going to vote to overturn the gun ban and vote to overturn the school "antidiscrimination" policy. I could have told you that Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Stevens were going to take the opposite side on both issues. Hell I might have even been able to give you pretty good odds on Kennedy voting with the majority in the gun case. But I would have never ventured a guess on how he would vote on the Hastings case.
 
Socrtease said:
Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The court grounded that right in the due process section of the 14th Amendment. The justices, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer predicated far-reaching implications. "Incorporating the right," he wrote, "may change the law in many of the 50 states. Read in the majority's favor, the historical evidence" for the decision "is at most ambiguous."

He was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Click to expand...

A tragedy for every freedom loving American. Guns are the antithesis of freedom. Freedom is not possible in a weapon wielding society.
 
Last edited:
Liberty said:
5-4. That's close, and scary.
Click to expand...

More like, unjustifiable. Those 5 need to be taken out and executed for violating their oaths to the constitution. They are enemies of freedom and liberty, and deserve no quarter. This is a sad day for freedom in the US. The founders would rise up and kill every gun owner in the US if they were alive today; you all deserve death for your atrocities and evil. May you all die; God has spoken.
 
Wickedjews said:
More like, unjustifiable. Those 5 need to be taken out and executed for violating their oaths to the constitution. They are enemies of freedom and liberty, and deserve no quarter. This is a sad day for freedom in the US. The founders would rise up and kill every gun owner in the US if they were alive today; you all deserve death for your atrocities and evil. May you all die; God has spoken.
Click to expand...

You're more boring, then irritating; but it's getting close for you to join the other trolls in the ignore round file.
 
Socrtease said:
No idea because while the court have found outright bans are unconstitutional, they hve provided no guidance as to how far laws can go. I can guess that on an open carry case the majority might lose Kennedy, I mean he went from siding with the majority on the ban to siding with the majority on the Hastings student group case. That is wide swathe of judicial philosophy. I could have told you before the cases were announced that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were going to vote to overturn the gun ban and vote to overturn the school "antidiscrimination" policy. I could have told you that Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Stevens were going to take the opposite side on both issues. Hell I might have even been able to give you pretty good odds on Kennedy voting with the majority in the gun case. But I would have never ventured a guess on how he would vote on the Hastings case.
Click to expand...

granted, reading the dissent leads me to believe that those 4 would overturn heller in a heartbeat, it would be an incredible leap of intellectual dishonesty (not that the liberal justices would be incapable of doing so) to overturn Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top