RaleighCarry
Regular Member
Supreme Court strikes down Chicago handgun ban; case may have far-reaching impact for states, local governments.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
BREAKING NEWS 10:19am 6-28-10
- Thread starter RaleighCarry
- Start date
RaleighCarry
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
rodbender
Regular Member
And where did you find this quote?
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
I have an initial article out about the win at
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minn...y2010m6d28-Substantive-victory-for-gun-owners
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minn...y2010m6d28-Substantive-victory-for-gun-owners
SaintJacque
Regular Member
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!
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.)
25sierraman
Regular Member
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
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