Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Federal judge rules 2nd Amendment doesn't apply OUTSIDE the home (ban upheld)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Federal judge rules 2nd Amendment doesn't apply OUTSIDE the home (ban upheld)


  2. #2
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Amigo!
    How totally absurd! How completely banal! Does that judge think the Bill of Rights only applies to one's home? Are you kidding me?
    Freedom of religion, but only inside your house?
    Freedom of the press, but only while you're in your domicile?
    Freedom of speech, but only if inside your dwelling?
    Freedom of peacable assembly, but only if you assemble in your own houses?

    What manner of logic served this judge in reaching such a ridiculous opinion?
    Talk about nonsense! That's the worst decision from a judge since Citizens United!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  3. #3
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    Thumbs down 2A ban ?

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary..."

    Just how many militiamen can you get in YOUR house?

    Ten to 12 tops in mine; and they will need to sleep outside.........

    And an armed group of folks who can't leave the house aren't very effective.

    Off to appeals court.

  4. #4
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    What's new?

    "A" federal judge rules etc. etc. Just think. "A" Federal judge ruled this way. I don't know whether I am more upset with the Federal Judge or with those of you thinking the outcome was going to be different. We are under SERIOUS attack from way too much of our judiciary along with an uncomfortable number of federal, state, county, and local elected officials. I am so much a believer in 'States Rights," but the second amendment is found in our bill of rights. Therefore, we should concentrate on getting federal legislation that applies to all states. We can always further define our state laws to be even more pro 2nd amendment, but a federal law would get us past a lot of this nonsense, I think.

  5. #5
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Contrarian View Post
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary..."

    Just how many militiamen can you get in YOUR house?

    Ten to 12 tops in mine; and they will need to sleep outside.........

    And an armed group of folks who can't leave the house aren't very effective.

    Off to appeals court.
    You've made some excellent points!
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Chicago pays up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAF_win.jpg 
Views:	249 
Size:	52.9 KB 
ID:	7918
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Chicago pays up.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SAF_win.jpg 
Views:	249 
Size:	52.9 KB 
ID:	7918
    It must have killed Raun Emanual to sign that check...lol

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    It must have killed Raun Emanual to sign that check...lol
    Rahm...lol. That sure is a pretty check...

    Illinois could avoid paying more money by simply allowing it's citizens to enjoy the same freedoms as many of us currently have.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  9. #9
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The Heller/McDonald decisions by the SCOTUS established a high-water mark at the federal level.

    No federal court has the power to either QUALIFY, DEFINE, OR LIMIT the Second Amendment because the 2A is a CONSTITUTIONAL HANDS OFF restriction upon THE FEDS.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    As soon as IL joins the rest of the US in firearms rights, I'll be able to visit family there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...onstitutional/

    A Federal Judge in MD rules in a way that is in direct conflict with the IL Federal Judge. MD Judge says you don't need a valid reason to get a permit. Government has to justify denials based on need.
    Here in IL the government thinks there is no valid reason for even having permits. Everyone is denied.
    Perhaps this will set up an appeal all the way up the ladder.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    While only being partially familiar with Illinois law, the consitution specifically denies the power to limit ones freedoms by the government. They are out of line. They are trying to turn this country into one ruled by man, not by laws. We need to get back to the law of the land, and that is the Consitution of The United States.

Posting Permissions

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