McDonald v. City of Chicago - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: McDonald v. City of Chicago

  1. #21
    First of all, I hope you don't think I'm lumping you in with ANTI's, because I am not. I just wanted to make that clear. I know you and I are on the same page on gun laws.
    We are just having a discussion on how each of us read and interpreted the ruling. No animosity here.

    "Since you mentioned Wisconsin...
    While its nice that one County's DA is stepping up to the plate, there are much bigger hurdles to leap...
    It is now 2010, and Wisconsin is one of only two states that completely prohibits anyone but police officers and sheriffs' deputies from carrying concealed weapons for self defense...
    Wisconsin Concealed Weapons, The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

    Moving on..."

    As Lee Corso says..."Not so fast , my friend!". LOL! They don't need to worry about concealment in Wisconsin. They are an Open Carry State. That's good enough for me. heck, I wish S.C. was like that. I HATE concealed carry, because it's so uncomfortable to me.

    "Chicago is simply mirroring what D.C. has been able to get away with for two years now since the Heller opinion...

    WHY?"

    I actually have two answers for that. First, they haven't been challenged. Secondly, they think they have the backing of an administration that is openly ANTI-GUN. Heck, Obama dissed the Supreme Court(with a lie, I might add) in his State of the Union Address,for crying out loud. Instead of 'WHY?", the answer is WHY NOT? They don't think they can lose. It's just like the arrogance of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader that said they were going to ramrod through the Healthcare Bill ( using so-called arcane House and Senate rules) against the wishes of 79% of the American Public. Chicago and washington are totally filled with arrogance and no regard for law or people's rights. They view themselves not as Mayor's, but as Benevolent Despots. There actions and commands are above reproach.

    Now, for my rebuttal to the rest of the quotes you posted. I didn't see a single one about the quotes they made several times in the rulings that the RKBA is fundamental, and should not be touched.

    I understand your stance of not jumping to any conclusions yet. I agree with that. The lower court, to which this case has been remanded, still has to issue the final decision in writing. NOW, I will also admit, and this is where I think the basis of my position differs from yours, is that I did NOT read the copy of the Argument made to the Court. You have read it, and it is clear to me from your statements that you read the Presentation to the Court as a plea for ONLY Gun Ownership for Defense in the HOME. I accept that premise from you.

    Even still, it appears to me that the Court actually went beyond that plea and expanded the concept of Gun ownership, AND CARRY, outside of the HOME too, with the many statements about RKBA being fundamental rights we have as citizens. BUT, I think you, and others, have not accepted these parts of the ruling because the Court added that phrase about "wherever and whenever you choose" so that municipalities and counties could still declare schools, hospitals, police stations, etc., as off-limits for Carry. The Court was just reassuring the cities and counties that they could still set reasonable restrictions on places of Carry...places that already are common to most cities, and to which gun owners have no problem accepting, as we do now.

    You might be 100% right in your interpretation, as well as I could be in mine. I just don't want to join the ANTI crowd AUTOMATICALLY and say that the ruling was very LIMITED, and the ANTI crowd can keep doing what they have been doing for years, save the HOME part of it. Let's take a page from the ANTI playbook and do what they always do...PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA THEY WAY THEY narrowly see it in a ruling. What have we got to lose? LOL!

    Does any of my position make better sense to you now? In your opinion, after reading this answer, it is possible I could be right? Or did I just miss the crux of the whole thing by NOT reading and understanding the oral presentation arguments made to the bench initially? I'd really like to have your take on that.

    And thanks for not calling me stupid too. LOL!!

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GOV5 View Post
    First of all, I hope you don't think I'm lumping you in with ANTI's, because I am not. I just wanted to make that clear. I know you and I are on the same page on gun laws.
    We are just having a discussion on how each of us read and interpreted the ruling. No animosity here.

    "Since you mentioned Wisconsin...
    While its nice that one County's DA is stepping up to the plate, there are much bigger hurdles to leap...
    It is now 2010, and Wisconsin is one of only two states that completely prohibits anyone but police officers and sheriffs' deputies from carrying concealed weapons for self defense...
    Wisconsin Concealed Weapons, The Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

    Moving on..."

    As Lee Corso says..."Not so fast , my friend!". LOL! They don't need to worry about concealment in Wisconsin. They are an Open Carry State. That's good enough for me. heck, I wish S.C. was like that. I HATE concealed carry, because it's so uncomfortable to me.

    "Chicago is simply mirroring what D.C. has been able to get away with for two years now since the Heller opinion...

    WHY?"

    I actually have two answers for that. First, they haven't been challenged. Secondly, they think they have the backing of an administration that is openly ANTI-GUN. Heck, Obama dissed the Supreme Court(with a lie, I might add) in his State of the Union Address,for crying out loud. Instead of 'WHY?", the answer is WHY NOT? They don't think they can lose. It's just like the arrogance of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader that said they were going to ramrod through the Healthcare Bill ( using so-called arcane House and Senate rules) against the wishes of 79% of the American Public. Chicago and washington are totally filled with arrogance and no regard for law or people's rights. They view themselves not as Mayor's, but as Benevolent Despots. There actions and commands are above reproach.

    Now, for my rebuttal to the rest of the quotes you posted. I didn't see a single one about the quotes they made several times in the rulings that the RKBA is fundamental, and should not be touched.

    I understand your stance of not jumping to any conclusions yet. I agree with that. The lower court, to which this case has been remanded, still has to issue the final decision in writing. NOW, I will also admit, and this is where I think the basis of my position differs from yours, is that I did NOT read the copy of the Argument made to the Court. You have read it, and it is clear to me from your statements that you read the Presentation to the Court as a plea for ONLY Gun Ownership for Defense in the HOME. I accept that premise from you.

    Even still, it appears to me that the Court actually went beyond that plea and expanded the concept of Gun ownership, AND CARRY, outside of the HOME too, with the many statements about RKBA being fundamental rights we have as citizens. BUT, I think you, and others, have not accepted these parts of the ruling because the Court added that phrase about "wherever and whenever you choose" so that municipalities and counties could still declare schools, hospitals, police stations, etc., as off-limits for Carry. The Court was just reassuring the cities and counties that they could still set reasonable restrictions on places of Carry...places that already are common to most cities, and to which gun owners have no problem accepting, as we do now.

    You might be 100% right in your interpretation, as well as I could be in mine. I just don't want to join the ANTI crowd AUTOMATICALLY and say that the ruling was very LIMITED, and the ANTI crowd can keep doing what they have been doing for years, save the HOME part of it. Let's take a page from the ANTI playbook and do what they always do...PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA THEY WAY THEY narrowly see it in a ruling. What have we got to lose? LOL!

    Does any of my position make better sense to you now? In your opinion, after reading this answer, it is possible I could be right? Or did I just miss the crux of the whole thing by NOT reading and understanding the oral presentation arguments made to the bench initially? I'd really like to have your take on that.

    And thanks for not calling me stupid too. LOL!!
    They repeated for the purpose of self-defense in the home with a handgun as being fundamental over 50 times in different ways...

    this is the problem with narrow scoped and ambiguous opinions from the courts...

    the more things they isolate as they did with handguns, in the home and self-defense purpose, the more they muddy up the waters so-to-speak...

    District of Columbia v. Heller - Oral Argument | The Oyez Project

    [District of Columbia v. Heller] Oral Arguments - C-SPAN Video Library

    At issue, according to the ScotusWiki summary of the case is "Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns for the purpose of self-defense in the home."

    According to the opinion in McDonald...
    In referring to petitioners & respondents briefs... "Neither submission requires the Court to express an opinion on whether the Fourteenth Amendment places any limit on the power of States to regulate possession, use, or carriage of firearms outside the home." ...
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  4. #23
    wolfhunter Guest
    Gov5, You may be right and the wording and phrases you mention may be in the ruling, but it is a VERY rare thing for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that is broader than the original plea. Since the plea in McDonald was to apply the decision from Heller to the States and lower jurisdictions, and Heller didn't lift the restriction on carrying, I doubt that Heller will ever be read as doing so.
    Last edited by wolfhunter; 07-08-2010 at 09:49 PM. Reason: spelling

  5. #24
    Good discussion.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 10:28 AM
  2. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By lukem in forum Illinois Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 02:27 PM
  3. E-mail I received concerning Orly Taitz
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 06:02 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 12:25 AM
  5. Chicago At It Again!!!
    By rabywk in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 05:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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