Chicago Gun Ban Overturned by SCOTUS

[meangene]

The DC ruling now applies to Chicago, and the rest of the country. Read all 214 glorious pages here...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[allingeneral]

More information here as well:

http://vagunforum.net/national-politics ... t5220.html

[Taggure]

This Victory is a good thing, and I don't want to bring this victory down but there is still a long way to go in this war and this was just another battle. With the Vote 5 – 4 you will note that 4 of the Supreme Court Justices VOTED AGAINST the Second Amendment and left room so that the local and state governments can still put undue restrictions on the individual that makes being able to carry out our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms pointless. Cases in point look at D.C. restrictions.

Daley will not lay down to this and I really look for Chicago to implement similar restrictions making it very difficult to enjoy this 2nd Amendment Victory. Again this is a good step forward, but the vote defiantly speaks out loud and clear and we need to continue to support all the organizations that work hard to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

Vern

[CowboyT]

And the officials of the City of Chicago wonder why their gun ban was, and is, widely flouted. Notice that they didn't dare try to prosecute that Korean War veteran for defending his home, or the other recent home-defense shootings whose owners violated the ban.

If they make things too onerous, the flouting will probably continue.

[BluemontGlock]

one of the interesting points for me was that they were specifc about it refering to "handguns" and the "home"...

Leaves alot open and on the table...

[Taggure]

one of the interesting points for me was that they were specifc about it refering to "handguns" and the "home"...

Leaves alot open and on the table...

My point exactly! I bet you a doller to a donut that this will be back up in front of the Supreme Court in one shape or another within the next couple of years.

The problem was that the Supreme Court Justices did not make a Clear Cut No Wiggle Room decision that the Second Amendment in it's entirity as being unaproachable for restrictions from now on. Supreme Court Justices just piece mealed another decision just like they did in D.C. instead of using Strong Unbreakable wording that would put this question to rest once and for all.

Vern

[allingeneral]

one of the interesting points for me was that they were specifc about it refering to "handguns" and the "home"...

Leaves alot open and on the table...

My point exactly! I bet you a doller to a donut that this will be back up in front of the Supreme Court in one shape or another within the next couple of years.

The problem was that the Supreme Court Justices did not make a Clear Cut No Wiggle Room decision that the Second Amendment in it's entirity as being unaproachable for restrictions from now on. Supreme Court Justices just piece mealed another decision just like they did in D.C. instead of using Strong Unbreakable wording that would put this question to rest once and for all.

Vern

My guess is that "No wiggle room" wording would have resulted in a different decision. I say we take what we can get on this one and keep working the issue.

[Taggure]

My guess is that "No wiggle room" wording would have resulted in a different decision. I say we take what we can get on this one and keep working the issue.

@ Rick
True, True, I doubt that the vote would have been in our favor either with the No Wiggle Room, but one could have a dream.

[OakRidgeStars]

More chatter from the MSM: AP - http://tinyurl.com/24zn2bg

The timing on this decision has left the NRA with a somewhat lackluster victory. The self-proclaimed largest gun rights organization in the country is still reeling from it's sellout on the DISCLOSE act. No one is better at taking the good news with the bad than the NRA.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/28/go ... un-rights/

[Taggure]

here is a good quote from the article

GOP Rep. Mike Pence:

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago, extended the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to all fifty states:

“In its ruling today, the Supreme Court has affirmed a fundamental point of federalism: No state has the right to legislate away the blood-bought Constitutional right of every law-abiding American to protect their person, their family, and their liberty.

“This decision is a victory for the Second Amendment, but as a 5 to 4 ruling among the justices it also sends a warning. The Supreme Court is closely divided and at least four of its members would not extend a basic constitutional right to all fifty states. For that reason alone, the nomination and confirmation of any Supreme Court Justice requires careful deliberation to ensure that the members of the high court will protect the rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.”

[allingeneral]

Cuccinelli weighs in on SCOTUS ruling for McDonald.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virgin ... virgi.html

SCOTUS ruling will guide Virginia gun law reviews, Cuccinelli says
Rosalind Helderman

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he will keep in mind today's landmark Supreme Court decision, ruling that the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives Americans a fundamental right to own guns wherever they live, as he reviews and offers opinions on Virginia law.

In a statement, Cuccinelli said he was "pleased that the Supreme Court has found that Second Amendment rights are as deserving of respect from state and local governments as are other rights found in the Bill of Rights." He singled out for praise language from Justice Samuel Alito indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is "'fundamental' to America's 'scheme of ordered liberty.'"

Cuccinelli said he will review cases and regulations dealing with guns on a case-by-case basis, evaluating them against today's ruling, as well as the Court's previous ruling striking down the D.C. handgun ban.

Meanwhile, in a state where politicians on both sides of the aisle tend to favor gun rights, other elected officials have been jumping in to praise the ruling as well. U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R) said it "reinforces the power and vitality of our Constitution as a bulwark against the encroachment by government on our fundamental rights." U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello called the 5 to 4 ruling "a victory for the Second Amendment and for our Constitution."

Both of Virginia's senators and 8 of its 11 Congressional representatives signed a friend of the court brief urging the court to strike down a restrictive Chicago gun law, the victorious side in the case.

[meangene]

A 5-4 ruling is pretty normal when SCOTUS takes on a contentious issue. Their ruling is definitely a step in the right direction and the trend should continue in our favor over the next few years...as long as none of the conservatives leave the bench before we get a descent President back in White House.

But more importantly, I'll be headed back to Texas in 3 years where I will continue my attempts to fill every empty space of my gun safe.

[Diomed]

The problem was that the Supreme Court Justices did not make a Clear Cut No Wiggle Room decision that the Second Amendment in it's entirity as being unaproachable for restrictions from now on. Supreme Court Justices just piece mealed another decision just like they did in D.C. instead of using Strong Unbreakable wording that would put this question to rest once and for all.

This.

It was not as bad as a total loss but it was hardly a total victory.

I think I'm actually more bummed that Privileges or Immunities got the shaft again in favor of that sham Due Process crap. If we have to live with illegitimate amendments I'd at least like to get some benefit of them.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he will keep in mind today's landmark Supreme Court decision, ruling that the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives Americans a fundamental right to own guns wherever they live, as he reviews and offers opinions on Virginia law.

You can start with that damnable UMGA, Kenny.

[ShortMan]

I am grateful for this, I really am.
But it bothers me they need 214 pages to say that the bill of rights is valid.
What happens if each of the other amendments experience a similar issue?

[gunderwood]

But it bothers me they need 214 pages to say that the bill of rights is partially valid.

Fixed it!

[zephyp]

I am grateful for this, I really am.
But it bothers me they need 214 pages to say that the bill of rights is valid.
What happens if each of the other amendments experience a similar issue?

One of my favorite subjects and the reason I think we as gun owners should be quite interested in the complete Constitution, not just the 2nd. If they ever strip that one they will no doubt do the same with others. As a matter of fact, many of our other Constitutional rights are assaulted, most just not to the same degree as the 2nd.