McDonald v. City of Chicago

[chris61182]

Oh crap, my browser or network freaked out. Sorry for the multiple posts.

 

[chris61182]

the Constitution contained the phrase I've been harping about and THAT was the law. It is/was real, not make believe, not some crazies' fiction, and no one is in any way arguing to go back to it today.

That wasn't your argument, but if you distill it down that far, of course I agree.

That has always been my argument, my response to bugeye couldn't have been taken any other way. Your input made it clear that the courts are utilizing a superset of what's in the Constitution, I never disagreed with that.

Just as you must certainly agree that it would have still been subject to the interpretation of courts...

Absolutely, using it, by definition requires interpretation. That's how they gave themselves additional powers, but that doesn't diminish the existence of the original powers granted to them either.

 

[Cougfan2]

 

[MikeSettles]

I think that Celebratory Gunfire is in order!

However, the decision fell short in two particulars:
1. 2A incorporated against the "due process" clause instead of "priviledges and immunities" of 14A, where it should have been. This leaves the door open for "reasonable gun control".
2. Alito (in the majority opinion) only mentioned "handgun in the home" for self-defense, instead of "armed anywhere a citizen has a legal right to be". A huge difference.

We should continue to work on it. Next, 1986 GCA and Brady Law go bye bye! Afterwards, 1968 GCA, then look to 1934 NFA. State preemption, "Dangerous Weapons" to be treated the same as firearms, NO permission for a public official to EVER disarm the public during emergencies, etc.

 

[bcp]

.
2. Alito (in the majority opinion) only mentioned "handgun in the home" for self-defense, instead of "armed anywhere a citizen has a legal right to be". A huge difference.

"bear arms" appears 195 times in a search of the opinion.
<broken link removed>

Examples

P. 1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.

P. 31
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

P.33
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.

 

[SnackCracker]

"bear arms" appears 195 times in a search of the opinion.
<broken link removed>

Examples

P. 1
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.

P. 31
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

P.33
Municipal respondents' remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.

"Most notably" does NOT equate to ONLY in the home, as the new Chicago laws would impose. I cannot see Daley's new laws withstanding challenges which are certain to come.

 

[chris61182]

As a result of the McDonald case a Wisconsin <broken link removed>

"I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:
Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement."

Way to go Jackson County Wisconsin! :woot::yes:

 

[MikeSettles]

BCP and SnackCracker:

I truly hope that you are right in your optimism. Forgive me for being a little pessimistic. I just perceive that the mention of "handguns in the home" leaves too much maneuver room for those would continue to limit the right via "due process" (instead of being prevented from doing so by "priviledges and immunities").

I see many more battles ahead. To quote Winston Churchill:
"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." &#8212;Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House following the victory at El Alamein in North Africa, London, 10 November 1942.

He also said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."