Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: We won

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    Red face We won

    The Supreme Court just Handed down it's ruling in our favor, 5 to 4..

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9
    What are you talking about

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214
    We won as in, the Chicago gun ban is unconstitutional!!!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    WE Won!

    msnbc.com staff and news service reports
    updated 4 minutes ago


    breaking news

    WASHINGTON — The Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

    The justices cast doubt on a Chicago-area handgun ban that has been in place since 1982, but also signaled in their 5-4 decision that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

    The ruling on gun rights and three other remaining cases came in its last meeting until the fall and the final day of Justice John Paul Stevens' long service.

    The Supreme Court also rejected appeals by the Obama administration and the nation's largest tobacco companies to get involved in a legal fight about the dangers of cigarette smoking that has stretched more than 10 years.

    The court's action, issued without comment Monday, leaves in place court rulings that the tobacco industry illegally concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. But it also prevents the administration from trying to extract billions of dollars from the industry either in past profits or to fund a national campaign to curb smoking.

    The court met Monday morning just a couple of hours before high court nominee Elena Kagan goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing.

    The 90-year-old Stevens announced his retirement in April, paving the way for President Barack Obama to nominate Kagan to replace him. Kagan's hearing begins early afternoon in Washington, in a Senate hearing room a short walk from the court.


    Stevens will retire as the second-oldest justice, after Oliver Wendell Holmes, and tied for second-longest tenure with Stephen Field, whose service began during the Civil War. Stevens' retirement will take effect on Tuesday, after 34 years, six months and 11 days as a justice.

    William Douglas has the record, with more than 36 years on the Supreme Court.


    Don't you just love how the media quickly moves off the subject and starts talking about big tobbacco?
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 06-28-2010 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran logan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greeley, CO
    Posts
    433
    Nice!
    Logan - Laugh lots, Love Often, and Defend the Irreplaceable
    Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP
    CC permits: MN, FL, NH, PA and CO

    Member of:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc., Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and National Rifle Association

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Court Blog

    9:30


    Tom:
    Good morning everyone.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:30 Tom
    9:32


    Tom:
    Thank goodness Bilski will come out today. I'm out of bad patent jokes.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:32 Tom
    9:33


    Tom:
    So after orders, guns should come first today -- from Justice Alito
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:33 Tom
    9:34

    Monday June 28, 2010 9:34
    9:35


    Tom:
    When Heller was decided, we had our biggest day ever, by far -- 300,000 hits. Americans care about gun rights.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:35 Tom
    9:37


    Erin:

    To learn more about the four cases to be decided today, see their SCOTUSwiki pages, which are linked to their names at the top of this post.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:37 Erin
    9:37


    Tom:
    i'm also surprised that there isn't more interest in the conservative and religious communities in Christian Legal Society.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:37 Tom
    9:39


    Tom:
    Incorporation will be under the Due Process Clause.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:39 Tom
    9:42


    Tom:
    Here is my best bet on how the cases will be dcided: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/th...our-decisions/
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:42 Tom
    9:43


    Tom:
    Welcome to folks coming from Drudge Report, which we really thank for the link.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:43 Tom
    9:44


    Tom:
    The link should work -- it's just that our traffic is so high that it may have trouble loading.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:44 Tom
    9:45

    Monday June 28, 2010 9:45
    9:46


    Tom:
    Just a reminder -- please do not refresh
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:46 Tom
    9:50


    Tom:
    Right now there are 3500 people watching the live blog, but that will be going up
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:50 Tom
    9:50


    Tom:
    Zero percent say no incorporation -- I love it.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:50 Tom
    9:51


    Tom:
    We do not know if Justice Ginsburg will be on the bench, given the passing of her husband yesterday.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:51 Tom
    9:55


    Erin:
    Believe it or not, we also expect orders this morning as well as the final four opinions. Our list of Petitions to Watch for this orders release is here.
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:55 Erin
    9:57


    Tom:
    3 minutes
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:57 Tom
    9:59


    Tom:
    Stay tuned; please don't refresh
    Monday June 28, 2010 9:59 Tom
    10:01


    Tom:
    My bet is roughly 25,000 people are watching the live blog.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:01 Tom
    10:02


    Erin:

    The Chief Justice opened the public session with a tribute to Martin Ginsburg.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:02 Erin
    10:03


    Tom:
    We believe Justice Ginsburg is on the bench.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:03 Tom
    10:04


    Erin:
    The Court denies review of all seven tobacco petitions, including one by the U.S.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Erin
    10:04


    Erin:
    Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Erin
    10:04


    Tom:
    Gun rights prevail
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:04 Tom
    10:05


    Erin:

    The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
    10:05


    Tom:
    5-4
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
    10:05


    Erin:
    Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Erin
    10:05


    Tom:
    The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:05 Tom
    10:06


    Erin:
    The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:06 Erin
    10:06


    Erin:
    Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:06 Erin
    10:07


    Erin:
    Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:07 Erin
    10:07


    Erin:
    The Court has granted review of six cases.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:07 Erin
    10:07


    Erin:
    Among them is the challenge to the AZ law regulating work for illegal immigrants: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, 09-115
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:07 Erin
    10:08


    Erin:
    The Court asks for the views of the Solicitor General in 09-1159, Board of Trustees of Stanford University v. Roche
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Erin
    10:08


    Tom:
    The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn't affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local reguation.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Tom
    10:08


    Erin:
    The McDonald opinion is here
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:08 Erin
    10:09


    Erin:
    The full orders list is here
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:09 Erin
    10:10


    Erin:
    It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito's opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:10 Erin
    10:11


    Erin:
    The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:11 Erin
    10:11


    Erin:
    All nine members of the Court are on the bench, including, of course, Justice Ginsburg.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:11 Erin
    10:12


    Erin:
    Just a reminder: please do not refresh
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:12 Erin
    10:16


    Erin:

    The scope of the Chicago gun ordinance in question in McDonald is very similar to that of the DC gun law struck down in DC v. Heller in 2008. Therefore its fate is probably already determined by applying Heller's reasoning to it.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:16 Erin
    10:17


    Erin:
    We will post on the blog later today examining the impact of McDonald on existing types of gun control laws
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:17 Erin
    10:18


    Erin:

    Breyer is now reciting from his dissenting opinion in McDonald. We don't know yet whether Stevens will announce from his, because he is senior to Breyer and so would go after him.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:18 Erin
    10:22


    Erin:
    We are also holding a "debate" on McDonald after today's live blog, with posts from scholars and lawyers analyzing the opinion. We will continue to post these throughout the day and into tomorrow, at least.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:22 Erin
    10:22


    Erin:
    I just got the first submission.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:22 Erin
    10:28


    Erin:

    Breyer is still reciting from his dissent.
    Monday June 28, 2010 10:28 Erin
    10:29


    Erin:
    For McDonald, there are 204 pages of opinions total, plus 4 pages of appendix for the Breyer opinion.
    Last edited by J.Gleason; 06-28-2010 at 10:54 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    The decision

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf 214 pages 1.09 MB

    Justice Thomas argued for incorporation via P&I, but with the Slaughterhouse Cases gone, so is P&I! No more expansion of 'civil rights' into drug legalization, homophilia, &c.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 06-28-2010 at 11:11 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

  9. #9
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    This is a great way to start out a week. The great mayor Daley is proibably going to try to reinvent ways to take away peoples rights. I heard him on public radio this morning, he will let nothing stop him, he will find a way to control the guns if it's the last thing he does. The citizens of chicago need to wake up and vote him out the first chance they get.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf 214 pages 1.09 MB

    Justice Thomas argued for incorporation via P&I, but with the Slaughterhouse Cases gone, so is P&I! No more expansion of 'civil rights' into drug legalization, homophilia, &c.
    Oh yes, The prohibitionists and homophobs are safe in their ways for a while longer yet.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Oh yes, The prohibitionists and homophobs are safe in their ways for a while longer yet.
    Those are merely your favorites? How about the "right to vote" and do we deny it to Juan Carlos Lopez-Casteneda?

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#1

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Categories of Rights

    A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.

    We encounter assertions of rights as we encounter sounds: persistently and in great variety. Making sense of this profusion of assertions requires that we class rights together by common attributes. Rights-assertions can be categorized, for example, according to:

    Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples.

    What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights.

    Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs.

    How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.

    Many of these categories have sub-categories. For instance, natural rights are the sub-class of moral rights that humans have because of their nature. Or again, the rights of political speech are a subclass of the rights of free expression.

    The study of particular rights is primarily an investigation into how such categories and sub-categories overlap. There has been much discussion, for example, of whether human rights are natural rights, whether the right to privacy is a legal right, and whether the legal right to life is a forfeitable right.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Those are merely your favorites? How about the "right to vote" and do we deny it to Juan Carlos Lopez-Casteneda?
    I believe that anyone can make it as complex as they'd like but in the end it's really as simple as "The only limitiation on ones rights is the equal rights of others". If any of the rights you listed are qualified with that quote, I'm not affraid of PorI. Also, as a side note, PorI is applied to "citizens" if I'm not mistaken.

    I realize we don't see eye to eye. That's because you're a "paleo-conservative" and I'm a Libertarian.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Madison, ,
    Posts
    34
    Must remember we are only a heartbeat away from this vote going 5-4 against. As long as anti-gun prez is in office we can count on more anti-gun Justices (like Kagen).

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    OBONGO's Kagen and his enablers.

    Quote Originally Posted by gdyslin View Post
    As long as anti-gun prez is in office we can count on more anti-gun Justices (like Kagen).
    Hopefully Kagen will not make it, with her thinnest portfolio yet, but with OBONGO's enablers from the GOP, who knows?

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    The thing to remember is that even if we assume Kagan is anti gun, she is replacing a justice that is anti gun so there is no change in the 5-4 vote.

    I'm not saying we should accept her, just saying we would be no worse off.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    So this decision basically means, all these stupid gun laws are unconstitutional and now unenforceable right???

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    So this decision basically means, all these stupid gun laws are unconstitutional and now unenforceable right???
    It means many of them will now be challenged and most likely open the door to getting some of them repealed.
    The challenges will most likely be successful, hopefully starting with the GFSZ suit.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by gdyslin View Post
    Must remember we are only a heartbeat away from this vote going 5-4 against. As long as anti-gun prez is in office we can count on more anti-gun Justices (like Kagen).
    Ahhhh, but the one she is replacing submitted a dissenting opinion as well. So she won't change much.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972

    Cool

    Ok so who has the time and money to challenge these? Cmon hurry up, I'm waiting

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Hopefully Kagen will not make it, with her thinnest portfolio yet, but with OBONGO's enablers from the GOP, who knows?
    +!
    The GOP needs to grow some hair on their Arses and vote NO on this one.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Ok so who has the time and money to challenge these? Cmon hurry up, I'm waiting
    WCI already has a challenge in the system to the Gun Free School Zone Statute, and as you point out it takes time and money. Individually it is very difficult, but if we stand together and pool our resources, we can succeed.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Ok so who has the time and money to challenge these? Cmon hurry up, I'm waiting
    If we can now bring suit under 1983 there are fee-shifting provisions where there were none before, making it much more affordable for anyone to sue. IANAL, though, and I'm not sure that this is the case.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Plenty of money comming in!

    Quote Originally Posted by administrator View Post
    There is no forum membership fee for OpenCarry.org but if you are also joining Wisconsin Carry you can send your membership fees to the address you have for Hubert.
    Plenty of money comming in!

  24. #24
    Regular Member kd6sxa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Quad Cities, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    92
    I like the victory. I don't really care for the 5-4 decision. 5 - 4 is cutting it close.

  25. #25
    McX
    Guest
    thusly, and rightfully so.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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