I'm very curious how people here will respond to this. Not just about guns, the SC is once again deciding how much right a state has. Careful how you tread.
While there, also check out the story of 3 family members killed during a home invasion in the suburbs!
They're not going to announce their ruling until June according to the video, and the poll is solidly in favor of striking down the gun ban. If the ban had not existed those people in Darien might still be alive. The FOID card needs to go too!
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I really do not understand people. We have Supreme Court justices that are picked to uphold the constitution with this oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Where here does it say change the Constitution of the United States??????????
Our country and its constitution is at odds and out right war with the very people that where hired to uphold her.
Look at this twisted statement from Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented in the 2008 ruling, wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states.
"If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms," she said.
Well miss Gindburg we are not just "any" free society WE ARE AMERICANS AND THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We are the the original free country. Please, please, please do not compare us to the rest of the worlds other "free" societies.
There are tons of liberties we enjoy that others do not so please do not try to change something that the 39 delegates signed off on.
You make me sick knowing you are changing the rights of what our country was founded one.
The 2nd amendment needs to be applied to state and local laws. The justices are not there to create law or policy, they are there to interpret laws. If one amendment is deemed to apply to the states, all amendments should be applied to the states. They may not all agree with our right to bear arms, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never set out to be ranked in order of importance or limited based upon the nature of the right.
The second amendment is something that, although not entirely unique to the United States, is not often mimicked by other democratic societies. Although few other societies may have such rights, we do not live in any of those societies, and those societies were not created under our laws and Constitution. Refusing to interpret our rights based on our laws because of philosophically differing opinions is disingenuous at best.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
the SC is once again deciding how much right a state has. Careful how you tread.
So, are you saying that the states have the right to disregard the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
I don't expect anything positive come out of the most communist state in America! Illinois is a perfect example of what happens under years of Liberal influence. I have be there in a few weeks and I dread it. The only thing I like about Illinois is leaving it!
So, are you saying that the states have the right to disregard the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Are they is the question. Lot of talk by people who want a state to leave the union because they beleive the union has taken away their rights to govern themselves. This could determine if the union has the legal right to force them other wise.
Abortion for example is deemed a constitutional right by the same amendments that are being used in this case yet no where in the constitution is it mentioned.
I do know this the courts involvement only comes as a result of a failure in society and the result is at best a compromise. Not restoration of health, just a prolonging of death.
Said it before that the constitutions writers wrote it in such a way to not need interpretation, it's being interpreted, that's a failure. Something will be added and something taken away and they say it will take a long time to sort it all out which means new judges. I don't see a politician that isn't the lessor of 2 evils being elected again in my life time so I don't see a good judge either.
Did ya know that is was gun owners who brought about the laws that the states are using today to limit gun ownership. They didn't want slaves having guns. They got that from their former masters the Brits.
While one hand is giving something another is taking something away. Wouldn't it be nice to get more freedom without giving up some? The NRA is only concerned with what it can get not what it gives up in the process. I guess they figure they can shoot their way out of the tightening grip of the federal government. Wouldn't it be good if they could get gun restrictions struck down and at the same time give the states more power to govern themselves? I know there are people smart enough to do it just seems they always work for the wrong side.
I haven't actually read the petition so I don't know for sure what's being argued. The 2008 D.C. decision only concerned the "right to keep" and not the "right to bear." They did hint though that the "right to bear" might be covered in the next case and that they would look upon it favorably.
I don't know if the argument concerns the "right to bear" in this case so I'm not going to comment on it. But I'm going to predict here and now that they will rule against outright bans but will allow plenty of "infringements."
I'm unalterably opposed to abortion, and don't agree with Roe v. Wade. But I'll have to admit that those justices seem to have had more b**** than the "conservative" justices we've been getting.
Chicago Handgun Ban Ruling Today!
