• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

B

Bikenut

Guest
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.............
 

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
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.:confused:
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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:lol:

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:
B

Bikenut

Guest
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.
 
Top