Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: McDonald v Chicago = "keep AND bear" now a civil right?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    McDonald v Chicago = "keep AND bear" now a civil right?

    OK... somewhere on OCDO, and I do not recall where, I read something about the McDonald v Chicago decision making "keep AND bear" a civil right.

    Did it? If so then would that mean folks who carry guns CC or OC have the same rights against discriminatory practices and policies of businesses open to the public as those other protected classes (disabled for instance) protected from discrimination?

    Just curious.............
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Agent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Thumb MI
    Posts
    120
    IANAL......(I always wanted to say that).....

    My guess would be that the SCOTUS ruling would be a Constitutional Right not a Civil Right.

    Just guessing.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wouldnt excerzising a constitutional right, be a civil right?

    i think that "businesses of public accommodation" will be forced to allow lawful carry!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I hope so. Its too early to tell how many things might change as a result of this. But surely many more things should change, than actually will change.

  5. #5
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    All semantics, so the real answer is: Yes/No. Civil Rights usually refers to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) and subsequent federal legislation. But, yes, sometimes it refers to the Bill of Rights as they have been incorporated.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    All semantics, so the real answer is: Yes/No. Civil Rights usually refers to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) and subsequent federal legislation. But, yes, sometimes it refers to the Bill of Rights as they have been incorporated.
    I was waiting for you to chime in DrTodd as you are a very informative poster....

    But this time Dude.... you have left me even more confused than before... but then, I kinda expected that it would take a court case to solidify the 2nd Amendment as also being a civil right as civil rights are thought of. However, I've not yet thought out whether "keep and bear" being a civil right would be a good thing... a neutral thing... or a bad thing. But that is food for thought for a different discussion...

    None the less... in a recent (today) letter to Wal Mart Home Office as a result of being denied entry into the Marquette store I presented the perspective that the manager of a local Wal Mart who denies entry to a person legally openly carrying a firearm but does not deny entry to persons legally concealed carrying a firearm is...... a discriminatory practice.

    And if McDonald v Chicago is shown to make the 2nd Amendment a civil right then it would be discriminatory to deny entry/services to any person legally carrying a gun regardless of the manner of carry.

    The next few decades are going to be................. interesting.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I was waiting for you to chime in DrTodd as you are a very informative poster....

    But this time Dude.... you have left me even more confused than before... but then, I kinda expected that it would take a court case to solidify the 2nd Amendment as also being a civil right as civil rights are thought of. However, I've not yet thought out whether "keep and bear" being a civil right would be a good thing... a neutral thing... or a bad thing. But that is food for thought for a different discussion...

    None the less... in a recent (today) letter to Wal Mart Home Office as a result of being denied entry into the Marquette store I presented the perspective that the manager of a local Wal Mart who denies entry to a person legally openly carrying a firearm but does not deny entry to persons legally concealed carrying a firearm is...... a discriminatory practice.

    And if McDonald v Chicago is shown to make the 2nd Amendment a civil right then it would be discriminatory to deny entry/services to any person legally carrying a gun regardless of the manner of carry.

    The next few decades are going to be................. interesting.
    Sorry

    I think it is... does that count?

    OK, Cornell University Law School say it is because, although not explicitly listed, they define it...

    civil rights:

    A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference.

    So once we start seeing court cases, a stronger argument can be made...

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
    Last edited by DrTodd; 07-29-2010 at 08:21 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Thank you DrTodd... I was hoping for precisely the type of info you supplied.

    Now we wait for a court case to define the 2nd Amendment as a "civil right"..................... and it might be a looooonnnngggg wait ... but that court case will surely be a bitterly fought battle with the anti's bringing everything including the kitchen sink to bear to save their agenda.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    In some cases, we are fighting not for our freedoms, but for the freedoms of our children, who, as time has shown, will need to use those rights far more desperately than we do now.

Posting Permissions

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