McDonald v. City of Chicago
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: McDonald v. City of Chicago

  1. #1

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    Justice Alito authored the opinion. Reversed and remanded

  2.   
  3. #2

  4. #3
    I think everybody is catching this this morning. I noticed Dave and RedHat posted something on this as well,
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    However, there was an important limitation in the majority opinion:

    "Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defensewithin the home.

    That doesn't prevent future cases from expanding the right to self defense beyond premises, but it does give states and municipalities the ability to restrict permits to premises until a court says otherwise.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    , most notably for self-defensewithin the home.
    I agree that caveat gave me pause. The language is vague enough to grantee it is revisited.

  7. #6
    from what i read you can carry any where
    The only bad gun, is a empty one.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Mass. Northshore
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by seeley booth View Post
    from what i read you can carry any where
    wait a minute! The law hasn't been rewriten yet, so its still illegal. I read they don't expect that to happen any time soon

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by seeley booth View Post
    from what i read you can carry any where
    That's exactly what they said in the opinion. The right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS. The sentence "most notably in the home" means "especially" in the home, the way I interpret it.

    All this print that we see about how undefining the opinion was is hilarious to me. What is more defining than the Court stating that the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental" to the citizen?

    Dailey's antics up there is a ruse to try to say how limiting the opinion was. It wasn't limiting AT ALL! And the NRA is backing him up in their statements too, by saying we still have a lot of work to do. Yeah, you sure have! You have a lot of work to do in order to justify your existence now. You see those big salaries going away, don't you!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Butner, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    362

    Exclamation McDonald v. City of Chicago

    Chief Justice Roberts remanded the case of McDonald vs The City of Chicago back to the lower court to reevaluate their earlier decision based upon the SCOTUS decision this past week, so McDonald and Petioners haven't won anything yet, Thats why Mayor Charles (Al Capone) Daly and his corrupt City Counsel voted even tougher gun restrictions Friday July 2nd. In essense Daly has spit on the SCOTUS decision, and his new restrictions are now very, very unconstitutional! If we had a President from another part of country, he/she would remove Mayor Daly from office, but Obama is a part doing business "The Chicago Way".
    MSgt, USAF (ret), Life Member - NRA, Life Member - NAHC,
    Life Member - NCOA, Member - USCCA, Member - NCGR,
    Member - Oathkeepers

  11. #10
    The court was even more limiting in its holding than it was in the dicta:

    "In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. ... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller"

    So the court held that the second amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for self defense. That doesn't mean that the second amendment does not protect other rights, it just means that is the limit of this court's holding.

    The Nordyke case addresses this issue head on. In Nordyke, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the second amendment applies to the states, but then ruled that a prohibition of possession of all firearms on all public was a valid restriction. The Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion awaiting the outcome of McDonald.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 09:28 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, 01:27 PM
  3. E-mail I received concerning Orly Taitz
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 05:02 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 11:25 PM
  5. Chicago At It Again!!!
    By rabywk in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-12-2007, 04:35 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