McDonald SCOTUS Decision -- Master Thread

[strambo]

Quote:
I work in a government building, and I sure as hell do not want people being able to carry here. That's just me.

Does it have metal detectors at all entrances with armed security? If it doesn't have both...all that is ensured is that if/when someone decides to come in armed and murder people...everyone else will be a dis-armed victim.

Quote:
Strambo, yes and yes.

I'll admit to hoping to prove my point by your building not having theses things. Since it does; yes, you are fairly secure, while in that building, from a firearm type incident.

That said, one thing I learn in formal Executive Protection training is that when it comes to "workplace violence" the current/ex employee workplace shooting (or violence of any sort) is exceedingly rare. So rare, it is a minor statistic and makes the news due to it's rarity. Over 90% of "violence in the workplace" incidents...are garden variety crimes (robberies, rapes, assaults) committed on company property by 3rd party criminals. So, you have traded good security from the less than 10% threat for increased exposure to the 90%+ threat.

Join the rest of the country though, I can't carry at work (most can't) and don't have any armed security or metal detectors either.

This is a discussion site, I respect your opinion and enjoy the discussion.

 

[Deanimator]

I can't wait to see what new measures he takes to make sure people can't utilize their rights. What a scumbag. I almost can't believe the people we elect and allow to stay in office. What's wrong with us?

I can't wait to see the resulting lawsuits.

Chicago is the way that it is because that's what the inhabitants LIKE. I'm from Chicago. They simply cannot imagine anything less than third world levels of municipal corruption, police corruption and criminality, and a racial, ethnic, and religious war of all against all.

It's no coincidence that BOTH neo-Nazi Frank "Blues Brothers" Collin and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright found Chicago such a congenial environment.

 

[ManBearPig]

What's very annoying is that Sotomayor was asked point blank in her confirmation hearings if she believed in an individual right to own a gun; she said she did. Then she turns around and votes against that individual right for all in America to own a gun in this case. Of course it's no suprise she voted no, since anyone Obama appoints will have already made up their mind to vote agains the 2nd Amendment in any gun case no matter what it is; it's more that she outright lied to Congress in her hearings. Isn't lying to Congress during a hearing a federal felony?

 

[KSDeputy]

Supreme court decision

While no one is any happier about today's supreme court decision than I am, don't get used to it. Once the hybrid loads up the supreme court with his appointed liberals, decisions like this will likely not be seen again for quite some time.

 

[rainbowbob]

Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if that right is an indispensable attribute of any “‘civilized’” legal system.

If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, the municipal respondents tell us, then that right is not protected by due process.

...since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of handguns, the municipal respondents maintain that due process does not preclude such measures.

So of course by that "reasoning" - if there are civilized countries somewhere in the world that ban free speech, or allow unreasonable search and seizure - due process would not apply.

That was their argument?

If there oppressive laws anywhere in the world than we can have 'em too!

I thought the whole point of our experiment in democracy was to establish a rule of law that was distinctly different - and more free - than how it was being done elsewhere.

Silly me...I must have missed something.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Silly me...I must have missed something.

Rest assured that it's not you that missed something.

 

[Manco]

No surprise, but what I find pathetic is how Supreme Court justices can so flagrantly allow their own biases to completely control how they decide unrelated matters such as whether a law is constitutional. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which allows for plenty of dissent in general, but some of them simply don't like what the Constitution says so they ignore it, even turning to the laws of other countries to help decide what they'll claim the Constitution of the United States supposedly says. I realize that there is no perfect solution to this issue, but only in the government can people be so obviously and blatantly incompetent and keep their jobs.

Oh yeah, I'm happy that the correct ruling was made, of course, but it could have gone the other way at some other point in time. Like virtually all other such decisions, it may be overturned someday but will not be for a very long time, and it's our job now to make this country's culture as gun-friendly as we can so that this will never happen.

 

[Manco]

I thought the whole point of our experiment in democracy was to establish a rule of law that was distinctly different - and more free - than how it was being done elsewhere.

Silly me...I must have missed something.

The People have voted into the highest executive office a Marxist who does not believe that the Founders of this country did much right at all, and that the US must now join the rest of the "civilized" (socialized) world. His ideas have plenty of supporters in the government at all levels, too, including SCOTUS. If the People want this country to remain identifiably the United States, then they should vote for American presidents (who of course appoint judges) from now on. If we don't, then we get what we deserve.

 

[Buck Snort]

doubt it will change NYC for the moment. D.C. is still trying every which way to make it difficult for their citizens to obtain a handgun, even after the Heller ruling.

Heller has another suit filed attempting to fight some of those restrictions. If he can shoot down some of the junk they've thrown up that'll make it easier for the rest of us. This Heller guy deserves a big pat on the back.

 

[Cards81fan]

First of all, MGs are legal. You can purchase a Pre-1986 MG with the proper paperwork and tax stamp. I'm not advocating for an all out end of restrictions on MGs right away. What I am advocating for is an attack on the Hughes amendment which closed the registry on MGs in 1986. Just like D.C. pre-Heller, you could have a handgun, provided that you registered it prior to 1976.

Hughes is slightly different, in that the registration is for the MG and not the owner of the MG, but it is still an arbitrary restriction on MG ownership that is not very different from the laws in Chicago or D.C. pre-Heller.

While I do not agree with the current system of regulation of "machine guns" I don't think the SCOTUS would touch it like they touched these handgun bans. Here why:

Heller and MacDonald were reviewed and decided based on the idea that

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the SecondAmendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the needfor defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

I am unsure if we could successfully argue that a "machine gun" would be a preferred firearm to keep and use for protection of one's home and family.

Again, not saying I am in favor of current registration requirements and/or taxes on full-auto ownership, but just wanting to point out the legal precedent that would now have to be overturned. I think these cases actually make it more difficult, as we have to argue protection, not just recreation.

 

[Buck Snort]

RETG wrote: "As with IL (and a few other states), CA needs to elect a legislature and a governor that are 2nd Amendment friendly."

That's scheduled to happen right after pigs learn to flap their ears and fly.

 

[BHP FAN]

ManBearPig said

''What's very annoying is that Sotomayor was asked point blank in her confirmation hearings if she believed in an individual right to own a gun; she said she did. Then she turns around and votes against that individual right for all in America to own a gun in this case. Of course it's no suprise she voted no, since anyone Obama appoints will have already made up their mind to vote agains the 2nd Amendment in any gun case no matter what it is; it's more that she outright lied to Congress in her hearings. Isn't lying to Congress during a hearing a federal felony?''

Wait until Kagen gets confirmed.You'll see plenty more of this.Don't celebrate yet, folks. We may still be well and truly boned.

 

[USMC 1975]

The best defense against outrageous gun laws is through the election of our local and State officials.

It is not enough to sit back and allow the NRA to line up against these wackos but as gun owners and sportsmen we need to support those who support us and help vote the others out. We cannot continue to rely on the Supreme Court to be our saving grace. We need to go after those at the local and State levels who make up these restrictive laws.

While I am thankful for the decisions for gun owners handed down by the SC, I am also not foolish enough to believe they will be there backing us gun owners forever.

 

[Buck Snort]

Mr. Davis wrote: "Daley has tipped his hand with the whole "police and paramedics" bit.

He's no fool...he profits from the corruption and crime in Chicago, and privately owned guns are bad for his cronies' business.

He will pass laws that delay paramedic response to houses where registered guns reside, perhaps by requiring that police be present before paramedics enter the home. You know, for public safety."

And guess what? There just WON'T BE any police officers available when parameds go to a house where the computer tells them there is a gun!!

 

[Tim the student]

I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said, but I am loving how the Huffpost servers are probably going to start melting soon!

 

[leadcounsel]

The dissenters drew different conclusions from the historical evidence.

“The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his last dissent before retiring from the court.

He said the court should have proceeded more cautiously in light of “the malleability and elusiveness of history” and because “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.”

“Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders,” he wrote, “they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims. The threat that firearms will be misused is far from hypothetical, for gun crimes have devastated many of our communities.”

In a dissent joined by Justice Ginsburg and Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said history did not provide clear answers and that the empirical evidence about the consequences of gun control laws are mixed. But there was evidence, he said, that firearms caused 60,000 deaths and injuries in the United States each year and that Chicago’s handgun ban has saved many hundreds of lives since it was enacted in 1983.

All of that, Justice Breyer wrote, counseled in favor of deference to local elected officials in deciding how to regulate guns.

Shameful that these are the 'brightest' minds we have to offer... Ignoring the fact that Chicago has the harshest gun laws and the highest violent crime and shooting rate in the nation, all by THUGS who are indifferent to the very laws that are enacted to prevent the very violence that occurs. Any 5th grader can connect the dots...

 

[leadcounsel]

Elections, folks, have consequences.

Had Al Gore won in 2000, we'd likely have had a majority of liberals on the bench. Today we'd be looking at 5/4 against Heller and 5/4 against McDonald, and the end of free gun ownership as we know it.

Keep that in mind when you vote.

 

[Buck Snort]

While no one is any happier about today's supreme court decision than I am, don't get used to it. Once the hybrid loads up the supreme court with his appointed liberals, decisions like this will likely not be seen again for quite some time.

In all likelilhood he'll be a one term president and there'll not be a chance to "load" the supreme court.

 

[Buck Snort]

Elections, folks, have consequences.

Had Al Gore won in 2000, we'd likely have had a majority of liberals on the bench. Today we'd be looking at 5/4 against Heller and 5/4 against McDonald, and the end of free gun ownership as we know it.

Keep that in mind when you vote.

Yes, voting for the lesser of two evils is distasteful but opting out just leaves the field open to the opposition.

 

[kiwiken]

Here in New Zealand, we don't have a constitution, and the ownership of firearms is a privilege, not a right. We must obtain a firearms licence before obtaining a firearm. Firearms owners are licenced, firearms are not. Your Supreme Court's decision made headlines in our national newspaper this morning http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10655186, and I must confess I was surprised at the narrowness of the majority. I wish we had a representative body as powerful as your NRA and others. Ours has been a "nanny state" for far too long, and now the attitude to firearms ownership is entrenched. A sad condition. Whatever you do, use the power of your vote to keep the libs at bay, while you can.

 

[armoredman]

Interestingly enough, I knew a Kiwi who worked for Loomis Armored in Tucson, AZ, who said he moved here from NZ because of our firearms laws.

 

[kiwiken]

armoredman, I should've done the same long ago, but now I'm too old and it's too late. Ah well, I'll be going hunting with my brother in a few weeks - and the hunting here makes up for a lot of things, a little

 

[Zack]

So OTIS McDONALD is the good guy? I was just told this. I was confussed on this whole issue, thank you guys for clearing it up.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/03/17/meet-otis-mcdonald/

I spent part of yesterday with Otis McDonald, the lead named plaintiff in McDonald v. Chicago, now under deliberation by the United States Supreme Court. When the Second Amendment Foundation mounted this challenge to the Chicago handgun ban, they could not have made a better choice. Mr. McDonald is your quintessential hard-working, self-made American.

Beginning life as the son of a sharecropper in Mississippi, he served in the United States Army, spent thirty years working for a university, and is now trying to finish his life in peaceful retirement with his spouse. However, the Chicago neighborhood where he has owned a home since the 1970s has been increasingly blighted by dope dealers, gang-bangers, and the sort of punks who harass and harm the elderly. He has been threatened on the street, and his home has been broken into numerous times.

Those who say, “You don’t need handguns because you can always buy a shotgun for home defense” should sit down with an open mind and listen to someone such as Mr. McDonald. “I’m 76 years old,” he points out. “Yes, I own long guns…but how long do you think it will take me to get up, get out of bed, and get my hands on a shotgun if someone is breaking in through the bedroom window?”

Justice Scalia wrote something similar in the majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, which confirmed that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and set the stage for McDonald, which will determine whether the states are bound by the Heller decision.

Otis McDonald’s compelling words will soon be posted on the Pro-Arms Podcast, http://proarmspodcast.com. One of the last questions I asked him was what sort of handgun he planned to acquire if, as almost all SCOTUS watchers predict, the case that bears his name results in an opinion that shoots down the nearly 30-year-old Chicago handgun ban. His answer? A 1911 model .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol…a gun he became familiar with as a soldier defending his country.

 

[atblis]

Bet of stretch though. Usually requires some threat of violence, harassment, etc.

 

[Sage Thrasher]

Very happy for the win. But equally appalled that Justice Breyer, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor, challenged not only Heller but also the right to self-defense. Reading his opinion--which repeatedly states self defense is not a fundamental right--is frightening, especially given how close the decision was.

Kagan MUST get due scrutiny and be required to give direct answers to simple questions, starting with "Is there a right to self defense? Is it protected by the Constitution? Explain."