The Supreme Court has reversed Chicago's gun ban. [More]Includes the complete opinion,.
This is going to occupy me for the rest of the day. I may go back in and add updates if warranted--for now, there's a long opinion to read and a lot of reactions to observe.
Share the link?
12 comments:
Getting ready to slap on my B/S filter to see what tripe the Brady bunch and the VPC brain trust spits out. Spin masters are busy at work while every gun owner in this nation is walking around with a earsplitting grin on their faces.
It don't mean nothin!
To Benna Ruth Solomon (Chicago's atty at the 7th district hearings) Who suggested gun owners can move if they didn't like their laws, London is due east 3,961 miles / 6,375 km. Don't let the door hit you on the way out sweetie.......
I have been attempting to keep the celebrating on this one down, because there is nothing to celebrate yet. As it stands, this Supreme Court Ruling means Chicagoans can now own handguns in their home. However it is still a class 1 felony to attempt to carry any gun off of your own property unless it is disassembled, or unloaded and in a case. (720 ILCS 5/24-1)
Now, if you want to pay $1,000,jump through flaming hoola hoops naked, wait 2 months, and undergo psych interviews- they might let you register a revolver in your house. What a deal!
A giant step in the right drection. But I have to wonder why the court would rule that way UNLESS they know that localities will use their local ordinances to cancel it out.
The shi-- I mean cities -- can claim "sovereignty." Just watch. But by that logic, the Constitution wouldn't apply ANYWHERE, and I dont believe the Founders had that in mind when thousands of their fellows were dying so we could have one.
In the end, it is a personal choice whether to live in submission or live free and be ready for the consequences. And if enough people choose freedom, then it is the Overseers who have to fear consequences. That would be -- America as it should be.
Now, how about some full faith and credit - universal reciprocity for licenses and permits.
Or eliminate the requirement for licenses and permits. I
"(b)The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system."
Now we know where they get their unbelievable justification. They have, from the get go, fundamentally misread the Constitution and Bill of Rights - and intentionally done so.
And I've read little that even mentions the actual facts of the matter. The federal government has absolutely NO authority to regulate firearms, education, health care or most of the rest of the things they meddle in. The whole thing about state's "rights" and federal power is mere distraction from this fact.
As it stands, when the federal government decides to dictate the "gun laws" to each state, and RKBA people support that... they are slitting their own throats. If they support a federal power to dictate gun laws, why would they object to federal laws that dictate health care or any of the rest of it.
On the surface, it looks like this ruling would benefit gun owners in some places in the short run... but letting the camel get his nose under the tent is never a good idea. Even if his breath is sweet today, it will be rotten tomorrow. Count on it.
So, this whole thing is a lose/lose set up for all of us... and a "win" only for the tyrants.
I think this was expected, but I expect it'll not change the tyrants insistent on disarming the populace.
I carry concealed every day outside my home and most days inside. And I don't ask or pay to exercise a right given by my Creator.
I own a retail store and I sense an increased anger from folks who used to admire the US government.
The black robed tyrants always seem to leave wiggle room for the antis.
Alaska, Arizona and Vermont carry EVERYWHERE should be the law of the land.
Shall not be infringed, means just that.
Typical response of a pandering whore propagandist for collectivist state media.
A "Substantive Guarantee" of Carnage, Unending
by Abby Zimet
Happily for the NRA and unhappily for the rest of us, the Supreme Court has struck down Chicago's firearm ban in a ruling that could jeopardize state and city efforts to limit the carnage visited on their citizens by the estimated 200 million guns owned by 90 million Americans. That's the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate, resulting in an average of 80 gun deaths a day, or 60,000 deaths and injuries a year. The ruling came after a weekend when dozens of Chicagoans were shot with handguns. One more time: It's past due to change the makeup of this court.
"Supreme Court sides with squirrel hunters and drug gangs against cops and innocent bystanders." – Twitter by Chicago resident Roger Ebert
Ah, the power of the First Amendment used against the Second.
The mark of the shallow-thinking elitist.
Remember Carl Rowan. Anti-gun editorialist, shot a trespasser in his yard.
"It's different this time, because it's ME!" -- Logan 5, Sandman, "Logan's Run"
There was some contention about whether it was the Due Process or the Privileges/Immunities clause that applied or incorporated the 2nd Amendment.
I disagree with both views, the 2nd Amendment is a natural right/law. Regardless of how they came across the decision, I am glad that this issue has been taken care of.
Post a Comment