2A wins...McDonald and Chicago - Lose

[APatriot]

2A wins...McDonald Wins and Chicago - Lose

God Bless the Anti-Federalists and the Bill of Rights!!

 

[West Texas]

The Truth is ALWAYS The Truth!

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights Liveshots

 

[Moss_Berg5150]

atriot:

 

[kurt]

It shall be interesting to see what Chicago plans to enact in its place. DC proudly proclaims it has managed to block all but 800 gun registrations since Heller.

 

[swsmailman]

My favorite quote from the idiot Daley

In an interview with the Tribune, the mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.

"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah I highly doubt that is the reason you need a registry, to protect the first responders that were called to the apartment (sorry) "projects" to help someone.

 

[2Shots1Wound]

I think that's the weakest angle I've heard in quite some time on this debate. They're getting creative these days aren't they?

 

[TexasFats]

Today's decision is a start, but my prediction is that it will take 20-30 more years of effort and litigation over what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" to try to roll back the damage to our rights that has already been done.
Also, while we have won one more battle, the war is far from over. To quote Winston Churchill, "It is not the beginning of the end, but, perhaps, it is the end of the beginning."
Also, we need to be even more watchful now, since we can expect some real counter-attacks from the left. Also, never kid yourself that these laws have anything to do with reducing crime, except as rhetoric to fool the foolish. Historically, weapons laws have always been about extending the control of some elite over a peasantry, for the fun and profit of that elite. It was true during the Tokagawa Shogunate in Japan, when only Samurai could own swords. It was true in the post-Civil War South, when gun laws were passed to make sure that ex-slaves would be defenseless when the Klan came to call. It was true in Great Britain when the National Firearms Act of 1920 was passed as a crime control measue, but really out of fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the aftermath of WW I. It was true in NYC, when the Sullivan Law was used to ensure that only Tammany Hall thugs had guns on election day. The examples could continue almost indefinitely.

 

[carnaco]

Good news for a change.

 

[APatriot]

Today's decision is a start, but my prediction is that it will take 20-30 more years of effort and litigation over what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" to try to roll back the damage to our rights that has already been done.
Also, while we have won one more battle, the war is far from over. To quote Winston Churchill, "It is not the beginning of the end, but, perhaps, it is the end of the beginning."
Also, we need to be even more watchful now, since we can expect some real counter-attacks from the left. Also, never kid yourself that these laws have anything to do with reducing crime, except as rhetoric to fool the foolish. Historically, weapons laws have always been about extending the control of some elite over a peasantry, for the fun and profit of that elite. It was true during the Tokagawa Shogunate in Japan, when only Samurai could own swords. It was true in the post-Civil War South, when gun laws were passed to make sure that ex-slaves would be defenseless when the Klan came to call. It was true in Great Britain when the National Firearms Act of 1920 was passed as a crime control measue, but really out of fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the aftermath of WW I. It was true in NYC, when the Sullivan Law was used to ensure that only Tammany Hall thugs had guns on election day. The examples could continue almost indefinitely.

I agree it is not over in regard to the "war" to protect the 2A. However, would you please elaborate as to the damage you say has been done to our "gun rights"?

 

[TexasFats]

I agree it is not over in regard to the "war" to protect the 2A. However, would you please elaborate as to the damage you say has been done to our "gun rights"?

AWB's in force in several states, IL. and WI still don't have any sort of CHL. Rationing laws on the books in several states (i.e., on gun per month), limitations on magazine capacity in several states, faculty in Texas not allowed to carry on campus, even with a CHL, not to mention that a 40-year old graduate student is assumed to be "too irresponsible" to carry because they are "a college student." There has been a gradual erosion of gun rights over my lifetime, and I'm 61 years old. Maybe it hasn't been so bad here in Texas, but don't forget that that Ann Richards vetoed CHL when it first passed, and we didn't get it until George W. became governor. And, now we have a candidate for governor who has been in Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, specifically, White the Democrat. Also, DC has done everything possible to circumvent Heller. Daly will do the same in Chicago. And, in NYC you basically can still only carry a gun if you are a rich politician or the bodyguard of a rich politician. That's just for starters.

 

[APatriot]

AWB's in force in several states, IL. and WI still don't have any sort of CHL. Rationing laws on the books in several states (i.e., on gun per month), limitations on magazine capacity in several states, faculty in Texas not allowed to carry on campus, even with a CHL, not to mention that a 40-year old graduate student is assumed to be "too irresponsible" to carry because they are "a college student." There has been a gradual erosion of gun rights over my lifetime, and I'm 61 years old. Maybe it hasn't been so bad here in Texas, but don't forget that that Ann Richards vetoed CHL when it first passed, and we didn't get it until George W. became governor. And, now we have a candidate for governor who has been in Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, specifically, White the Democrat. Also, DC has done everything possible to circumvent Heller. Daly will do the same in Chicago. And, in NYC you basically can still only carry a gun if you are a rich politician or the bodyguard of a rich politician. That's just for starters.

+1

 

[jgedmond]

AWB's in force in several states, IL. and WI still don't have any sort of CHL. Rationing laws on the books in several states (i.e., on gun per month), limitations on magazine capacity in several states, faculty in Texas not allowed to carry on campus, even with a CHL, not to mention that a 40-year old graduate student is assumed to be "too irresponsible" to carry because they are "a college student." There has been a gradual erosion of gun rights over my lifetime, and I'm 61 years old. Maybe it hasn't been so bad here in Texas, but don't forget that that Ann Richards vetoed CHL when it first passed, and we didn't get it until George W. became governor. And, now we have a candidate for governor who has been in Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, specifically, White the Democrat. Also, DC has done everything possible to circumvent Heller. Daly will do the same in Chicago. And, in NYC you basically can still only carry a gun if you are a rich politician or the bodyguard of a rich politician. That's just for starters.

How about the fact that a CHL is needed at all? I think that qualifies as a means to "abridge" our right to keep and bear arms. We do not have to pay a fee, be invasively investigated and fingerprinted, get training, and have a license to exercise our 1st Amendment rights. Why are these measures necessary to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights?

This is a very important ruling, but the real battles will be over what constitutes "reasonable" gun laws.

 

[APatriot]

How about the fact that a CHL is needed at all? I think that qualifies as a means to "abridge" our right to keep and bear arms. We do not have to pay a fee, be invasively investigated and fingerprinted, get training, and have a license to exercise our 1st Amendment rights. Why are these measures necessary to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights?

This is a very important ruling, but the real battles will be over what constitutes "reasonable" gun laws.

Having a CHL is not an "abridgement" to my 2A rights. Am I not bearing arms? I would argue restrictions as to where we can carry are an "abridgement" however. Why do I find it necessary to be redundant? Could it be because the same arguments from pro-OCers are presented?

 

[jgedmond]

Having a CHL is not an "abridgement" to my 2A rights. Am I not bearing arms? I would argue restrictions as to where we can carry are an "abridgement" however. Why do I find it necessary to be redundant? Could it be because the same arguments from pro-OCers are presented?

I much prefer concealed carry; but more in the VT, AK, and AZ model. I am keeping the big picture in mind. Just because your right is not abridged does not mean that someone else's is not. Putting obstacles in the way of peoples right to keep and bear arms is an abridgment for some, maybe just not for you and me.

 

[APatriot]

I much prefer concealed carry; but more in the VT, AK, and AZ model. I am keeping the big picture in mind. Just because your right is not abridged does not mean that someone else's is not. Putting obstacles in the way of peoples right to keep and bear arms is an abridgment for some, maybe just not for you and me.

Your response is begging for a point to go along with the words.

 

[jgedmond]

The points are there, maybe you need to think about more than your little world.

 

[Texan2]

How about the fact that a CHL is needed at all? I think that qualifies as a means to "abridge" our right to keep and bear arms. We do not have to pay a fee, be invasively investigated and fingerprinted, get training, and have a license to exercise our 1st Amendment rights. Why are these measures necessary to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights?

This is a very important ruling, but the real battles will be over what constitutes "reasonable" gun laws.

Actually if you are a member of "the press" (i.e. a print publication or radio/tv news station) you do have to get a "press pass" to get into certain events. To get that pass a background check IS performed, due to the fact that you may be able to be in close proximity to certain figures. I could go on, but suffice it to say that there ARE restrcitions on the 1st amendment as well.
I do have issues with certain gun laws that were passed in the 30's and again in 68', but most gun owners will not agree with the premise that the 2nd amendment means there can be no controls on guns (or carrying guns) whatsoever. I am not sure what you mean by "invasively investigated" or "get training". The background check done to get a CHL (in Texas) isn't that in depth and there is NO training requirement, just a cursory lesson on the law and a proficiency test which is embarrassingly easy.

 

[res1b3uq]

5 to 4 is not good. I have never been able to understand why "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is that difficult for a Liberal to comprehend. Aren't they supposed to be the highest of intellegence in the universe?

 

[Texan2]

5 to 4 is not good. I have never been able to understand why "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is that difficult for a Liberal to comprehend. Aren't they supposed to be the highest of intellegence in the universe?

While distressing 5-4 is also quite common inthe USSC. And few political appointees could be described as "the highest intellegence"