Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: And what shall Monday bring?

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Well times up.

    For those whom do not know, SCOTUS only announces on Monday's and the next one coming up is the last one of the session.

    McDonald vs Chicago shall be announced!

    I hope they avoid weasel words like "reasonable" like they did with Heller but who knows. I think it is likely that we can all toast another victory, but nuttier things have happened.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    Well times up.

    For those whom do not know, SCOTUS only announces on Monday's and the next one coming up is the last one of the session.

    McDonald vs Chicago shall be announced!

    I hope they avoid weasel words like "reasonable" like they did with Heller but who knows. I think it is likely that we can all toast another victory, but nuttier things have happened.
    I do believe that they handed down 7 slip opinions today Thursday June 24, 2010 according to this.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    9026543 wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    Well times up.

    For those whom do not know, SCOTUS only announces on Monday's and the next one coming up is the last one of the session.

    McDonald vs Chicago shall be announced!

    I hope they avoid weasel words like "reasonable" like they did with Heller but who knows. I think it is likely that we can all toast another victory, but nuttier things have happened.
    I do believe that they handed down 7 slip opinions today Thursday June 24, 2010 according to this.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/
    You are correct, I should have worded that as "they typically in recent years have been prone to releasing major and far reaching opinions on Mondays while not all of them happen this way and the general perception of most has been that if they did not release the opinion early in June, there was a very real thought that they would indeed do it on the last day of the session which is Monday"

    Despite my lack of clarity, I remain excited and hopeful as I see it as a HUGE win for my friends across the river, not to mention a huge prevention step for the rest of us in the future.

    I actually do wish that they would in fact say 'we are done debating this issue and the right shall in no way be infringed and all laws associated with obtaining, possessing, and carrying of firearms are immediately struck down and only the actual use of a firearm may be regulated in any manner.

    If they did that, I would be satisfied 100%. Since they likely won't, you will have to live with me saying things slightly incorrect and at times not supporting that view through poor wording etc. I can live with it if you can as I hope we have that same goal.


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  4. #4
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    9026543 wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    Well times up.

    For those whom do not know, SCOTUS only announces on Monday's and the next one coming up is the last one of the session.

    McDonald vs Chicago shall be announced!

    I hope they avoid weasel words like "reasonable" like they did with Heller but who knows. I think it is likely that we can all toast another victory, but nuttier things have happened.
    I do believe that they handed down 7 slip opinions today Thursday June 24, 2010 according to this.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/
    You are correct, I should have worded that as "they typically in recent years have been prone to releasing major and far reaching opinions on Mondays while not all of them happen this way and the general perception of most has been that if they did not release the opinion early in June, there was a very real thought that they would indeed do it on the last day of the session which is Monday"

    Despite my lack of clarity, I remain excited and hopeful as I see it as a HUGE win for my friends across the river, not to mention a huge prevention step for the rest of us in the future.

    I actually do wish that they would in fact say 'we are done debating this issue and the right shall in no way be infringed and all laws associated with obtaining, possessing, and carrying of firearms are immediately struck down and only the actual use of a firearm may be regulated in any manner.

    If they did that, I would be satisfied 100%. Since they likely won't, you will have to live with me saying things slightly incorrect and at times not supporting that view through poor wording etc. I can live with it if you can as I hope we have that same goal.

    I wish for the same things as you.

    Regulate the second amendment no more than the first.

  5. #5
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    I actually do wish that they would in fact say 'we are done debating this issue and the right shall in no way be infringed and all laws associated with obtaining, possessing, and carrying of firearms are immediately struck down and only the actual use of a firearm may be regulated in any manner.

    If they did that, I would be satisfied 100%. Since they likely won't, you will have to live with me saying things slightly incorrect and at times not supporting that view through poor wording etc. I can live with it if you can as I hope we have that same goal.

    You and me both. That is exactly how it SHOULD be ruled.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    TADA!!!!!!!!!!! 5-4!

    now we have to wonder in what ways will they make it difficult for law-biding citizens to obtain the permits they need etc....or if they will ban OC

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Daly knows he has a lot more tax payer money to spend before he goes to jail. I expect there will be a lot of fees and red tape involved for our friends in PRIL.

    Pretty much made it clear they expect the lower courts to deal with this stuff a lot more effectively and follow the law of the land without regard for their opinions. I am wondering how insane the judges who this was remanded to are going to be in the future.

    Its a check mark in the win column but you can't expect those idiots in PRIL to not screw the pooch again since the whole thing is citizen funded.

  8. #8
    Regular Member YuppieDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St Charles, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by lmtd View Post
    daly knows he has a lot more tax payer money to spend before he goes to jail. I expect there will be a lot of fees and red tape involved for our friends in pril.
    pril ?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by YuppieDog View Post
    pril ?
    Peoples Republic of Illinois

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    lmtd you most likely can clarify this for me...so did the ruling end up being for all states instead of just chicago? where does the the lovely libtarded state of IL go from here?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    It goes for all 50 of em.

    This is sort of the difference chicago was trying to imply. They basically said Heller was a DC ruling on the feds and did not apply to states as DC is not a state.

    Basically this was sort of them saying the Constitution only applied to the feds as pathetically stupid as that sounds. What is more worrisome to me is the simple fact that 4 of the justices clearly defined that they should not have their positions on SCOTUS as this was more or less a rule of law, not an opinion or loose interpretation. By saying it only applies to the federal government, they are effective saying each state can indeed have their own little tyranny over the citizens of those states and the bill of rights would not apply.

    I can only assume they did so because it involved the second amendment and firearms. If they had the same case in front of them because someone was not allowed free speech in chitown as it was restricted, they would have jumped onto the other side of the fence so fast you would think they were Olympians.

    It is just another example of how for whatever reason, some people will deny what is true to support an agenda even when they are specifically charged with the task of not doing so.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    It goes for all 50 of em.

    This is sort of the difference chicago was trying to imply. They basically said Heller was a DC ruling on the feds and did not apply to states as DC is not a state.

    Basically this was sort of them saying the Constitution only applied to the feds as pathetically stupid as that sounds. What is more worrisome to me is the simple fact that 4 of the justices clearly defined that they should not have their positions on SCOTUS as this was more or less a rule of law, not an opinion or loose interpretation. By saying it only applies to the federal government, they are effective saying each state can indeed have their own little tyranny over the citizens of those states and the bill of rights would not apply.

    I can only assume they did so because it involved the second amendment and firearms. If they had the same case in front of them because someone was not allowed free speech in chitown as it was restricted, they would have jumped onto the other side of the fence so fast you would think they were Olympians.

    It is just another example of how for whatever reason, some people will deny what is true to support an agenda even when they are specifically charged with the task of not doing so.
    so in essence, for il, this decision means their statewide gun ban is now unconstitutional correct? now we have to worry about how the dictator of il will twist gun control now over there?

  13. #13
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by nrepuyan View Post
    so in essence, for il, this decision means their statewide gun ban is now unconstitutional correct? now we have to worry about how the dictator of il will twist gun control now over there?
    I do not believe that they had a Statewide ban on handguns, only in Chicago and one of the Suburbs...Oak something...

    This decision, as far as I can understand, will allow citizens in these areas to purchase and keep handguns in their "house"....this has nothing to do with the open carry, concealed carry or any carry for that matter...

    It will still allow them (anti's) to set up restrictions as they have already said they will...such as registration, training, and if you can believe this, they want them to get liablity insurance in order to get a handgun.

    They will still go overboard to make it too expensive for most "law abiding" citizens to get a handgun...It will all be in court cases for years to come.

    Z

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    I do not believe that they had a Statewide ban on handguns, only in Chicago and one of the Suburbs...Oak something...

    This decision, as far as I can understand, will allow citizens in these areas to purchase and keep handguns in their "house"....this has nothing to do with the open carry, concealed carry or any carry for that matter...

    It will still allow them (anti's) to set up restrictions as they have already said they will...such as registration, training, and if you can believe this, they want them to get liablity insurance in order to get a handgun.

    They will still go overboard to make it too expensive for most "law abiding" citizens to get a handgun...It will all be in court cases for years to come.

    Z
    isn't IL's FOID requirement, that they have a history of denying, their way of "banning" but not officially banning firearms without using the word ban? wasn't it something statewide that caused all of us to disarm and disassemble before crossing the border? now i'm getting confused...

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by nrepuyan View Post
    isn't IL's FOID requirement, that they have a history of denying, their way of "banning" but not officially banning firearms without using the word ban? wasn't it something statewide that caused all of us to disarm and disassemble before crossing the border? now i'm getting confused...
    This case had nothing to do with the FOID system or the transportation of firearms within PRIL.

    You still must stop at the border, unload, and case your firearms and make them inaccessible to the driver. Many will also recommend you case the ammo and firearm separately, though I have been told this is not required by law and have seen no such law myself. PRIL is also a state where more than a few questionable searches have taken place and firearms have resulted in significant penalties.

    This case will force the lower court to review the ruling and reverse the ban in Chicago and the other city and Daley has already tried to make it impossible again. There will be several more lawsuits before folks in PRIL are headed to the restoration of their rights, Daley has too much tax payer money left to spend and he turn to go to jail is not yet determined.

Posting Permissions

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