Chicago Gun Ban struck down

5-4. It will be interesting to see how the libs/progressives respond to this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Supreme-Court-Guns/2010/06/28/id/363257

Justice Alito wrote an amazing decision. Using the congressional laws leading up to the 14th amendment, and the congressional debate over both those laws and the 14th amendment, he built a solid foundation for the 2nd amendment being covered under the 14th. He also brilliantly argued how the 2nd can't be separated or treated differently from other "fundemental rights" (a term used something like a dozen times in his decision). Additionally, his comments on the racist history of gun control and the impact of the Chicago law on minorities was cutting.

As someone else on this board said, Alito tore Chicago a new A$$h0le from their knees to their scalps.

No restrictions on 2A and 14A by court or state... we just need to continue the push against the corporations that insist on stripping people of their right to self-defense. Am I reading into all this legalese correctly? Can the businesses with "No Firearms" signs be considered as traitors to the Constitution?

RSKuroi said:

Can the businesses with "No Firearms" signs be considered as traitors to the Constitution?

Click to expand...

No, that's a private property issue. You have a right to go wherever you want, so long as the owner is willing to let you onto that property. But the property owner can deny you for any reason, and likewise you can choose not to give them money for any reason.

Yeah, I know. Just wishful thinking on my part.

While it'd be great if every business would agree to the fact that legally-carried guns deter the criminal element, the rights of said businesses to restrict guns will probably butt heads with the rights of gun owners to carry them for a long time to come.

Best to keep voting with our wallets and hope they eventually say, "Hey... are we losing out on money?"


(No wait, they probably already do say that and they just don't care.)

RSKuroi said:

No restrictions on 2A and 14A by court or state... we just need to continue the push against the corporations that insist on stripping people of their right to self-defense. Am I reading into all this legalese correctly? Can the businesses with "No Firearms" signs be considered as traitors to the Constitution?

Click to expand...

That's NOT what the decision says. It still leaves the door open to "reasonable" restrictions and listed some. You KNOW that they'll all rewrite (and rewrite and rewrite) with what they SAY are reasonable restictions every time they're struck down in court for a long time to come.

Mayor Daley of Chicago is already on record as supporting a liability insurance requirement for gun owners in Chicago. It will likely be struck down but someone has to file the case and spend the money to do it.....EVERY TIME they come up with a new "reasonable restriction".

Todays decision was definitely a WIN (for us, not brady inc as they claim by grasping at the few reasonable restrictions spelled out in the decision) at the battle for incorporation is now won but the war continues. California will be interesting as there are many jurisdictions on the edge of insolvency including the state as a whole so perhaps the expense of fighting lawsuits will bring them to their knees.....we can hope!

Should I have instead said "lesser restrictions that can and will change at the drop of a casing because too many politicians have their hands in special interest money"?

RSKuroi said:

Should I have instead said "lesser restrictions that can and will change at the drop of a casing because too many politicians have their hands in special interest money"?

*sighs* This political back-and-forth crap is so needlessly complicated.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem and the solution. The Constitution was written a long time ago and needs to be reworded to eliminate all the BS that lawyers, judges, politicians, and the like have created. Like the feds using the "commerce clause" to stick their fingers into anything and everything by prostituting it's intent, meaning, and words.

Here's the problem. As bad as things are, if we open up the Constitution to a "rewrite" what might we end up with? It could be very very ugly or it could be a thing of beauty. Do YOU trust Congress and the Sentate to do a good job?

BONUS: If the answer to my last question was "YES" please contact me as I have some really nice deals for you.
Waterfront property in Florida
A bridge from which you can view the Statute of Liberty
Some really valuable Liberian coins
And a variety of other items of untold value
ALL at prices you'll find too good to be true.

Haha, the answer to that question is a definite "Hell no!".

If it were open to rewording, there's a good chance we'd end up with a Constitution similar to California's state version. Fifty times wordier and nearly as ridiculous.

...But, if it were to be opened for a rewrite, how should it really be done and who by?

(Decided to cut off that last line because it sounded kind of whiny, least to me.)

RSKuroi said:

Haha, the answer to that question is a definite "Hell no!".

If it were open to rewording, there's a good chance we'd end up with a Constitution similar to California's state version. Fifty times wordier and nearly as ridiculous.

...But, if it were to be opened for a rewrite, how should it really be done and who by?

(Decided to cut off that last line because it sounded kind of whiny, least to me.)

Click to expand...

It should be done by ME and be very clear. I'm the dictator, I am benevolent (REALLY), and the people are actually FREE.

2 nd amendment

I think it was a great step in the right direction and a long time coming.......We can only take back our freedoms one day at a time....
The next big step will be The Immigration issue in AZ.....And I am not just talking about Mexico....
What happens in AZ will set the stage for the entire US and all its borders...