The Countdown to McDonald v. Chicago

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
I think Deanominator and ArmedBear are coming from 2 different age brackets which is causing a ruckus.


No need to fight amongst each other guys. Save that for the Anti's.


Also, talking about the 2nd Amendment and a Land War in Asia doesn't make you a better person or more intellectual then someone who talks about American Idol or Pop Culture, it just means you have different interests.
.

 

[Deanimator]

Also, talking about the 2nd Amendment and a Land War in Asia doesn't make you a better person or more intellectual then someone who talks about American Idol or Pop Culture, it just means you have different interests.

Well, you're definitely half right there. I'm sure that Michael Bellisles can discuss the 2nd Amendment, and he's not even a decent person, much less a better one.

And yes, knowing the difference between Schroedinger's cat and Garfield DOES make you more intellectual than somebody who doesn't. That's kind of what "intellectual" MEANS.

That having been said, the claim was made that "x" isn't discussed, or only discussed by White supremacists. Apparently supporters of civil rights don't EVER discuss those things.

As I said, the person who made that claim and I clearly move in different circles.

And I don't think that person's mentally ill, just immature.

 

[DonP]

My best guess is Monday the 28th.

This Thursday the 24th is a faint possibility, but the last day is more likely with a more controversial decision.

But just for the record, SCOTUS has established a precedent for carrying a ruling over until the next session (only 3 times in 200 years or so). So they could technically kick it down the road. But that ain't gonna happen.

As much as I want to get this done and move on, I'd enjoy seeing Daley melt down for the whole summer. He is totally off his meds already about this and is having a gun related event every few days. Friday he appointed the father of a son was killed by gang gunfire as a new "Community Liasion" to curb gun violence. The week before he had his wacky press conference where he hoped that one of the Supreme Court justices would be mugged or shot by armed robbers, "to change their mind about guns".

Then he refused to comment on 3 senior citizens that successfully defended their homes and business with an "illegal" handgun about whether the city would prosecute them.

Then he threatened to shove a rifle up Mick Dumke, the reporter, for the Chicago Reader's butt and shoot him for asking about the ban's effectiveness.

Every day with him just keeps getting better and better as he embarrasses even his gun control buddies at the Tribune with his antics.

When he gets it handed to him his first move will be a big stall to appoint a " blue ribbon panel to investigate the best way to protect the first responders". That committee will be all gun grabbers and won't even meet for at least 6 months.

 

[MisterMike]

No need to fight amongst each other guys. Save that for the Anti's.

Uh huh.

Here in Chicago I think a lot of folks, though like not a majority, understand the practical significance of McDonaldbut almost none really understand the core Constitutional issue. Whenever you hang around a group of people devoted to an issue, it clouds your perception of what the average guy thinks about that matter.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Well, you're definitely half right there. I'm sure that Michael Bellisles can discuss the 2nd Amendment, and he's not even a decent person, much less a better one.

And yes, knowing the difference between Schroedinger's cat and Garfield DOES make you more intellectual than somebody who doesn't. That's kind of what "intellectual" MEANS.

That having been said, the claim was made that "x" isn't discussed, or only discussed by White supremacists. Apparently supporters of civil rights don't EVER discuss those things.

As I said, the person who made that claim and I clearly move in different circles.

And I don't think that person's mentally ill, just immature.

"And yes, knowing the difference between Schroedinger's cat and Garfield DOES make you more intellectual than somebody who doesn't. That's kind of what "intellectual" MEANS."



So, I guess since I know the difference between Schroedinger's cat, Garfield and who Lady Gaga is, not only am I more intellectual then you, I'm also more well-rounded then you too.

 

[Deanimator]

So, I guess since I know the difference between Schroedinger's cat, Garfield and who Lady Gaga is, not only am I more intellectual then you, I'm also more well-rounded then you too.

Provisionally, that would make you AS well-rounded as I am, since I know who she is.

Whether you think she has musical talent is the deciding factor in whether you have taste in music.

Lady Gaga is Madonna minus a decent singing voice, pretensions of relevance, nearly thirty years of hard wear, and a growing resemblance to Kirk Douglas in a bustier.

 

[rbernie]

Enough drift.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
I'm predicting Monday, June 28th also.


Heller was the last day also.

 

[taliv]

look, guys, if you want to make it controversial and thus discussed more, just mention by the by that 51 people were shot in chicago this weekend alone... mcdonald is both important and urgent

 

[Phatty]

I definitely think McDonald will be the last opinion released on the last day of the term.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be released next Monday. Every once in a while, the SC extends the term by a day to release the final opinion(s) if they are not quite ready yet. So, there is a chance the case won't be released until the 29th.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

look, guys, if you want to make it controversial and thus discussed more, just mention by the by that 51 people were shot in chicago this weekend alone... mcdonald is both important and urgent

We talk about 23 murders currently being a lot more then we had last year (19 was the total I think) and I always say, "Look at Chicago, they have roughly 45-50 murders a month.


That's a ton. Granted, they are tremendously larger then we are also.

 

[taliv]

and tremendously stupider

[strike]51[/strike] 52

 

[Manco]

McDonald will be New Guinea. It'll start the slow, inevitable process of rolling them back, leading to their final destruction. Like New Guinea, it'll also spotlight all of their self-inflicted vulnerabilities, none of which they'll remedy, out of arrogance.

Are you so certain of the outcome of McDonald? Washington D.C.--a federal district outside of any state--is one thing (with regard to Heller), but states' rights is something completely different. While I certainly hope that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, I wouldn't get too excited until we get a ruling in our favor, that is, IF the ruling is in our favor.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Are you so certain of the outcome of McDonald? Washington D.C.--a federal district outside of any state--is one thing (with regard to Heller), but states' rights is something completely different. While I certainly hope that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, I wouldn't get too excited until we get a ruling in our favor, that is, IF the ruling is in our favor.

It would be hard for SCOTUS to say that the 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm only belongs to those that live in a Federal enclave.


I'm am pretty sure we will win, that that entails is to be decided.

 

[taliv]

sadly, we have a 200 year history of the federal government grabbing power on our side

when was the last time you saw anyone at the federal level, including SCROTUS, say "oh no, you state and local boys do whatever you like, we don't have the authority to stop you"

 

[wishin]

Sometimes reading through threads like this is as entertaining as being the designated driver among a group of drunks........

 

[Deanimator]

look, guys, if you want to make it controversial and thus discussed more, just mention by the by that 51 people were shot in chicago this weekend alone... mcdonald is both important and urgent

And Daley's and Weis's public responses get more and more surreal with every day. Now they've tried to distinguish between "inside" and "outside" murders, the former somehow not being preventable, but the later being preventable. They don't seem to be "preventing" EITHER.

 

[230therapy]

I'm not at all excited.

SCOTUS threw out "shall not be infringed" in Heller. They gave the go-ahead for gun control...a CLEAR violation of the Second Amendment.

If they're willing to do that, then I am willing to bet that we'll get yet another bad decision from nine power mongers in black dresses.

 

[Deanimator]

Are you so certain of the outcome of McDonald?

As certain as a person reasonably can be.

All reports seem to indicate that the court, by and large, was not AT ALL impressed with Chicago's oral arguments, and with good reason.

Everything I saw of them indicated gross inadequacy on the part of the city's attorneys' work. Underlying that, I VERY strongly suspect is a Hitlerian "Stalingrad" type of obsession on Daley's part. Unless the city attorneys are astonishingly incompetent, it's clear that they're being told to "die in place".

Chicago could go back to the status quo ante circa 1970 and they'd be done. Daley's megalomania makes that impossible... at least until they're slapped down in court.

Chicago's attorneys get paid, win or lose. I think they know they're going to lose.

 

[jbrown50]

.
I'm predicting Thursday, June 28th also.


Heller was the last day also.

Well....technically the last day of the session is Monday the 28th but, i'm hoping for Thursday too so I can celebrate over the weekend.

It'll be interesting to me to see where Associate Justice Sotomayor really stands and what will be her reasoning behind it.

 

[Deanimator]

It'll be interesting to me to see where Associate Justice Sotomayor really stands and what will be her reasoning behind it.

[strike]Given that she's equated the Klan and the NRA, it doesn't take a lot of guessing...[/strike]
Oops, I was thinking about Kagan.

 

[everallm]

I'm not at all excited.

SCOTUS threw out "shall not be infringed" in Heller. They gave the go-ahead for gun control...a CLEAR violation of the Second Amendment.

If they're willing to do that, then I am willing to bet that we'll get yet another bad decision from nine power mongers in black

230Therapy

I would suggest you actually READ the ruling before making such a comment.

The SC did nothing of the sort, they stated that their then ruling was (As it should have been) specifically in answer to the question raised and, in answer to your comment

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

In other words it is just as likely to have SOME bounds as every other Constitutional rights.

The SC did indulge in some expansion outside the strict question asked in that they ADDED a final sharp stake through the heart of the militia BS.

I would suggest you read the document, then make remarks

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

[RDak]

This case is extremely important for the long term survival of the 2A.

If we win McDonald, it will allow the private ownership of firearms for MILLIONS of people who are currently prohibited from owning firearms.

This will be a culture changer over time IMHO. And a GOOD one.

Future generations will grow up in a country that allows the private ownership of firearms for self-defense purposes without regard to a militia.

This is so important that I simply cannot emphasize it enough.

 

[Japle]

I recall a post in another thread last year that made an interesting point. The idea was that, under the 1st Amendment, if you want to own a newspaper or radio station or TV station, you need to get a license from the government. If you want to speak in public, all you need is a plastic milk crate to stand on and a public street corner.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t currently incorporated in all states and therefore doesn’t have a “milk crate” equivalent. You need a license to own an NFA weapon (and I doubt that will change), but if you want to “keep and bear” weapons in common use, you may or may not need a license, depending on where you live. That especially applies to long guns, particularly those nasty “assault weapons”. Assuming the SCOTUS decision goes the way we want, that will have to change.

My hope is (and this will probably take several years and a great deal of court time) that we will eventually have the legal right to carry an AR-15 or any other common-use weapon exposed if we wish. Concealed carry will, I think, usually be licensed, but as long as open carry is the law of the land, that will cover “keep and bear”.

I’d love to see the right to keep and bear any weapon that’s carried by a common infantryman. NFA should equal crew-served weapons only, if that. I’d like to see NFA gone, but that’s not likely.

I don’t necessarily want to own an M-2 or carry my AR or even open-carry. I do want the right to do so if I feel the need. Or the desire. Or the whim.

 

[Manco]

It would be hard for SCOTUS to say that the 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm only belongs to those that live in a Federal enclave.

All Heller said was that as far as the federal government is concerned, we all have the RKBA. But it doesn't say that individual states cannot infringe on it with their own laws, up to and including a complete ban on the private ownership of firearms. Is the federal government empowered to protect our 2nd Amendment right from the states? Currently, based on SCOTUS case history, the answer is NO--the federal government may not be able to take away our RKBA, but the states still legally can. It is hoped that McDonald will reverse all precedents and change the status quo regarding the 2nd Amendment, but that is a huge step to take.

sadly, we have a 200 year history of the federal government grabbing power on our side

when was the last time you saw anyone at the federal level, including SCROTUS, say "oh no, you state and local boys do whatever you like, we don't have the authority to stop you"

That's a good point, however all levels of government have also generally been working against our rights, so it's not as though the federal government is gaining power overall. On the one hand, they get to slap down state laws to show them who's boss, but on the other hand many in the federal government would love nothing more than to keep the current gun control laws and make plenty more of them if they could. Is gaining power over the states worth giving more power to the people? I'm working under the assumption that the main goal of any government is to increase power, and that any concessions made regarding this are to keep the people appeased just enough in order to consolidate the power that a government already has.

As certain as a person reasonably can be.

All reports seem to indicate that the court, by and large, was not AT ALL impressed with Chicago's oral arguments, and with good reason.

That's a reasonable standpoint, and admittedly I've been under the assumption that McDonald will be ruled in our favor, as well, but I guess over time I've become reluctant to make predictions using reason and good sense because so few people use them. If the current makeup of SCOTUS were any different, then I'd be really worried about them legislating from the bench against our rights whenever certain subjects such as guns are involved.