Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: BREAKING NEWS 10:19am 6-28-10

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    BREAKING NEWS 10:19am 6-28-10

    Supreme Court strikes down Chicago handgun ban; case may have far-reaching impact for states, local governments.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

    Supreme Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban

    In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois' 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

    A conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its two-year-old conclusion the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

    The court, however, said local jurisdictions still retain the flexibility to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures currently in place nationwide.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Wink

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    I'm only up to page 21, but Alito has ripped Chicago & Oak Park a new butthole that begins at the heels and goes to the crown of the head.

    Applies the 1866 Freedmans Act and as I see it creates a "protected class" of gun owners. Maybe not as protected as race, sex, etc. but certainly more protected than automobile owners.

    Alito notes several times that self defense "in the home" was NOT the limit of Heller - merely the paramount place of exercise of the right. I'm thinking this is in fact clarification of Heller - in which case DC will be collectively ******** its pants as they tear out their hair.

    I've got to read it over again with a note pad at hand, and then do some cross-checking, but my impression is that McDonald is a bigger win than we had any right to expect. With the majority split between due process and privileges it could mean that eventually both will come into play. I'm happy with due process but would really have liked to see privileges prevail.

    Best of all - actually 2 bests of all 1) Slaughterhouse does not apply, and 2) Cruickshank and Miller are essentially removed from stare decis. Hooray!

    stay safe.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166
    Roberts: "sure, let them have their guns. It's not like any of them will have the courage to actually use them."

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by canadian View Post
    Roberts: "sure, let them have their guns. It's not like any of them will have the courage to actually use them."
    And where did you find this quote?

  6. #6
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    I have an initial article out about the win at

    http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...for-gun-owners

  7. #7
    Regular Member SaintJacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    139
    This is truly wonderful news. Now we just have to see about removing some of the more draconian restrictions in places like CA. Great news!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040
    King Daley and mayor Bloomingidiot must be in near-stoke status about now. Hey guys, how do you like this semi-auto? Should someone ram it up your a...? (Note: Reference to Daley's threatening of a reporter to do so with an antique rifle at a press conference.)

  9. #9
    Regular Member 25sierraman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alexandria , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    144
    Skidmark

    Can you point me to where in that reading was Justice Alito clarifying the Heller case? I just skimmed through his opinion and i guess i missed it thorugh all of the legal jargon. Thanks in advance!


    Edited because i quoted the wrong member

Posting Permissions

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