Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Brief of disgusting Liberal Republican Indianapolis Mayor Against Second Amendment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Pierce is a Coward, ,

    Post imported post

    You will not find a more anti-gun argument from Sarah Brady, Chuck Shumer or Dianne Feinstein.

    This Republican is as bad as it gets.

    Some of my favorite quotes:

    "Plaintiff cannot state any claim against a municipality under the Second Amendment"

    "A. Plaintiff cannot state a Second Amendment claim against a municipality.
    Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Second Amendment against any Defendants.
    Plaintiff purports to state a claim under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amd.
    Compl., Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 23. However, such a claim is not a claim upon which relief can be
    granted as the Second Amendment is not applicable to states or municipalities. See N.R.A. of
    America, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, *3-6 (7th Cir. June 2, 2009); see
    also Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1982).
    The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear
    arms applies only to the federal government. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542
    (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). The
    Supreme Court in Presser held:
    [T]he Second Amendment declares that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not
    be infringed, but this…means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
    Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict
    the powers of the National government….
    Presser, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). While the Presser decision is an older opinion, the Seventh
    Circuit has affirmed the relevance of its holding, noting it “is the law of the land and [courts] are
    bound by it.” Quilici, 695 F.2d at 270.
    The Seventh Circuit has recently revisited the Second Amendment’s applicability to
    municipalities. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6. Following the
    Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2793 (2008), several
    plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association, filed suit against the City of Chicago and
    Village of Oak Park. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3. Plaintiffs claimed
    that the defendant cities’ outright bans on the ownership of most handguns violated the Second
    Case 1:08-cv-01602-LJM-TAB Document 23 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 4 of 20
    Amendment. Id. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, the District Court
    noted that the Supreme Court had denied previous attempts to apply the Second Amendment to
    municipalities and therefore “only the Supreme Court may change course.” Id.
    In affirming the District Court, the Seventh Circuit again declined to apply the Second
    Amendment’s protection to municipalities, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions and its own
    decision in Quilici. Id. at * 4-5. The Seventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court has still not
    reversed its decisions in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller regarding the Second Amendment’s
    inapplicability to the states, because incorporation was not “a question not presented” in Heller.
    Id. at *6 (citing Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2813, n.23). As a result, the Second Amendment’s
    application to states or municipalities “is [only] open to reexamination by the Justices themselves
    when the time comes.” N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *6.
    Based upon the facts as stated in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has purported to state
    a claim under the Second Amendment not against the federal government, but against a
    municipality. Amd. Compl., ¶¶ 6-8, 23. Just as in N.R.A. of America and Quilici, Defendants
    cannot be liable for violation of the Second Amendment as it does not apply to municipalities.
    N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6; Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269-70. Plaintiff
    cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted and all Defendants are entitled to

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA

    Post imported post

    Why can't blacks own guns after the Civil War ?

    Tell me again .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts