McDonald SCOTUS Decision -- Master Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well a win here might not be a huge leap forward but a loss would have been a huge step back - so IMO a win is a great thing. But it is just a step in the right direction. Restrictions for law abiding citizens will still exist.

Which drives me crazy that Daley's response makes it sound like Chicago is Oz, and now the floodgates of violence and crime have been opened with SCOTUS' decision. He's going to have to make sure police and paramedics are going to be safe - total BS - the guy is a fool and will never get it. At least soon law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves from the decay these laws have brought upon the city.
 
The first irretrievable part is that no municipality anywhere in the US can pass any law in the area of 2A that is stronger than that of the state in which it resides, "home rule" at least for 2A is DEAD.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on that? I hope you are right, and am not saying you are wrong,but would love to see where you took that from the ruling.
 
Breyer's dissent was about what I expected. It amounts to "Heller was wrong, the 2nd is still about the militia, and so this case is wrong too". Seriously, his dissent is positively littered with the usage of the word "militia" early on.

Both he and Stevens assert that this decision will cause deaths as well. It genuinely looks like the opinions at those points could have been written by the Brady Campaign.

It's just astounding that this could read the way it does even after the Heller decision.
 
From page 45 of the pdf file (pg 39 of the ruling), a portion of Alito's opinion:

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at (?) (slip op., at 54–55).

We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

.
.
Bummer dude!!
 
"What is Mr Obama's take, I wonder..."

Obama said at 12:23 local time "The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Chicago to yield to its mandate."*

Or am I mistaken and it was Jackson who said "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," followed not long after by the Trail of Tears under dear old Martin?








*No, Obama didn't really say that...yet.
 
BB62, that's a good thing. I for one do not want felons being able to buy firearms, nor do I want someone deemed by the State "mentally ill" to be able to either. Same goes for places that you can carry. I work in a government building, and I sure as hell do not want people being able to carry here. That's just me.
 
I work in a government building, and I sure as hell do not want people being able to carry here. That's just me.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Another common sense decision on a common sense issue by the only SCOTUS members who ever regularly exhibit common sense...

Who'd a thunk it? :)
 
What is Mr Obama's take, I wonder...
Click to expand...
Who cares. He's the earliest lame duck president since Carter.

I'm sure he'll voice his opposition in his next SOTU address. I'll be surprised if the Justices will be in attendance this time though.
 
Dirtymike, Do you also provide an armed escort the the car, and are you watching cars for break ins where firearms are forced to be left?
 
Last edited:
I work in a government building, and I sure as hell do not want people being able to carry here.
Click to expand...
That way, if a disturbed individual with a weapon decides to make you a victim, you'd have no choice but to become one. I'm not envious of your situation.
 
dirtymike1 said:
I work in a government building, and I sure as hell do not want people being able to carry here. That's just me.
Click to expand...

Mind if I ask then why you are a member of a pro gun forum? Just curious.
 
Wow, some victory. Given, it's better than losing. But it doesn't warrant the hype I'm seeing here.
Click to expand...

After 1968, gun owners found themselves in a valley, their rights destroyed largely by populist fear over gang violence that turned public opinion against guns. A ton of grossly unconstitutional laws got passed, leaving us buried in the pit with no real way to overcome the public pressure.

Then, as the hysteria over guns faded, we started rolling a very heavy stone ball up a very high mountain. That stone represented the rights protected by the second amendment, and that high hill was the main barrier restricting gun rights to many Americans.

McDonald, to me, is the act of cresting that hill and pushing the stone down the other side. The momentum has now been totally shifted - instead of us having to work against the hill, gravity, and all the debris anti-gunners could lay in our path, we've got momentum on our side. The antis are playing defense now, and while there are plenty more battles to fight, we're no longer the underdog...we're in a position of strength and can leverage it to victory.

It's kind of like "Return of the Jedi". Blowing up the Death Star and killing the Emperor wasn't the end of the fight for the Rebel Alliance, but it was a mortal blow against the forces of evil.

So pardon me while I party like an Ewok!

episode_6_ewok_2.jpg
 
What it means is that in practice, they can't require registration, then not ALLOW you to register
Click to expand...
Isn't this what the Hughes amendment does? Why can't Heller or this case be used to lever open registration on MGs?
 
nor do I want someone deemed by the State "mentally ill" to be able to either.
Click to expand...
Old Comrade Uncle Joe Stalin thought the same way, and the description of "mental illness" became pretty broad. To put it in more modern terms, I remember hearing of one outfit that said coffee drinking was a sign of mental illness. Some shrinks would love get a preference to firearms declared a sign of mental illness.
 
Which drives me crazy that Daley's response makes it sound like Chicago is Oz, and now the floodgates of violence and crime have been opened with SCOTUS' decision. He's going to have to make sure police and paramedics are going to be safe - total BS - the guy is a fool and will never get it. At least soon law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves from the decay these laws have brought upon the city.
Click to expand...
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.

He will make people choose between prompt emergency services and the right to self defense. Just watch.
 
Let him. The crazier he reacts the better it is for our side.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. I can't wait until he gets brought up on charges personally for contempt of the Supreme Court in trying to circumvent all their rulings.

His Fiefdom is in ruins, and must be taken from him. Wake up, Chicago!
 
Oh frabjous day!!

@dirtymike1 - If you don't trust your co-workers w/ firearms, you might consider changing offices 'cause that little voice is telling you something... BTW, I also work in a gov't building. Lots of firearms enthusiasts here. Most former soldiers, some former or reserve LEOs, and plenty 'o plain 'ol civilians who like things that go 'bang'. I'd be willing to bet the combined collection of my coworkers would exceed that arsenals of some of the units on base. ;)

Excuse while I go do a little futterwacken.
 
Quote:
"What it means is that in practice, they can't require registration, then not ALLOW you to register"

Isn't this what the Hughes amendment does? Why can't Heller or this case be used to lever open registration on MGs?
Click to expand...

Rampant ignorance and absolute lack of political will among gun owners and organizations regarding MGs.

Must first overcome the wide-eyed question "Why do you need an MG for?"
 
dirtymike1, I see a pile on is staring on your opinion. I’ve been here a few more years than you and can offer you this unrequested advice.

All sorts of folks are here on the High Road with all sorts of opinions. In general I’ve found the ones that defend their right to their opinion the most are the most vocal in denying anyone else right to have a different opinion. With some posters there is no end in the amount of typing they will do to re state their point of view over and over again, no limit to how farfetched scenarios they will come up with, inapplicable historic analogy they will call up, or rare occurrences they will use as examples to support their point of view.

You choice is to try to beat them at their own game, but I’ve found their ability to ignore what others say is limitless. Or you can let them rant ad lib while you get on with the rest of your life (remember you have one; apparently not everyone on THR does.)
 
The Supreme Court Has Spoken

In a 5 to 4 ruling, the USSC has upheld the rights of real people, individuals, or so it appears.

While gun owners might express their appreciation to a majority of the court, one might wish to wait for thoughtful analysis of the ruling itself, what does it say in plain English as opposed to what it says in lawyers talk, possibly the last mentioned being more significant than the first part.

As for the four justices that voted against the individual rights of real people, one is given to look at another recent court ruling, that being one that effected the rights of what are “legal constructs”, corporations, as opposed to real people. In the court’s upholding the free speech rights of corporations, how did these four justices vote?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
McDonald vs. Chicago Decision PDF
Replies
3
Views
536
wishin
W
T
  • Locked
3 gun cases pending cert with SCOTUS
Replies
1
Views
633
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
U
  • Locked
Article: Is this SCOTUS's next gun case
Replies
4
Views
839
natman
N
T
  • Locked
Heller links and updates
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
153
Views
30K
Punkermonkey
P
D
  • Locked
High Court Won't Revisit Fla. Felon Voting (ban) & other stories
Replies
2
Views
344
RealGun
RealGun
Back
Top