Banning of self defence/7th US Circuit

[Marlin T]

Federal court says self-defense ban by states is Constitutional



June 3, 10:41 AM · 11 comments



.iconpanel a { text-decoration:none; color:#006699}; .iconpanel a:hover { text-decoration:none; color:#006699} 11 comments
ShareThis
Feed




Courtesy Oleg Volk, A Human Right
States can not only ban guns, they can ban self-defense. That's what a court just ruled. And we're told it is the "conservative" position:

Today, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago by President Ronald Reagan, took the same hands-off as Sotomayor. They joined a 3-0 ruling that upheld weapons ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Illinois, and rejected challenges by gun rights advocates.

Don't let the raising of the Reagan mantra persuade you. The reverence gun owners have for the man is based more on illusion than substance. He was no friend of gun owners, supporting waiting periods, semi auto bans, and bans on open carry.

If we're going to take a "conservative" view, there are plenty of quotes from the Founders. If we want a "conservative" legal view, there can be no better source than William Rawle, the man George Washington wanted to be attorney general, and whose "View of the Constitution" was once the standard reference at both Harvard and Dartmouth:

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Slaves to stare decisis, the 7th Circuit expects us to believe that the creature, that is, the law, takes precedence over the creator, the people, in this unbelievable speculation from the decision:

Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes must surrender rather than fight back—in other words, that burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens...

Our hypothetical is not as farfetched as it sounds. Self-defense is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible...An obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns.

The court speculates dangerously. And as long as we're talking hypotheticals, suppose some gun owners say "Enough," and mean it?

Legal avenues for redress have not been completely closed off--yet. Some are of the mind that Judges Posner and Easterbrook have done us a favor by increasing the chances the issue will be resolved favorably by the Supreme Court. As I noted in an earlier column, the Ninth Circuit ruled the Second Amendment is "incorporated against the states," so that increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear the matter.

Note I didn't say "decide". No matter what opinion they issue, that ultimate authority rests elsewhere.

[OBrien]

Its not that they don't want you to fight back from criminals its they don't want you to fight back when they decide to take total control. Speaking "hypothetically" of course because this dictatorship, I mean democracy, shoot I meant to say republic would never do that. Forgive me I went to public school.

[bcj1755]

Oh, come now Comrades, give up your guns, you don't need them. The gov't can protect you and provide for your every need and want. Just give up a few insignificant person liberties that you won't even miss. In exchange, our great and glorious leader, King-Emperor Barack I His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter, will make sure that no harm ever comes to us. Besides, we all know that guns are the single cause of all crime. Turn in your guns and crime will magically disappear. Now let us prey...O-BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-ma O-BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-ma O-BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-ma


You know, I can defend myself just fine, thank you very much/ The 7th US Circuit Court and cram it up their cramholes. So can The Kenyan Hussein. So can Sneaky Joe. So can Comrade Hillary. So can Eric ButtHolder. So can Blinky Pukelosi. So can Nevada Harry. So can Dammit Janet Swineapolitano. Have I missed anyone? Meh, if I have, I"m sure the feds already know how I feel

[45nut]

OBrien & bcj,


Both of you guys made me spew my diet coke on my screen. Thanks, I needed the good laugh.

Needless to say you are both correct and funny. It's all just a game. A very real, dangerous, nasty, sneaky and cunning game. They are counting on us of all remaining calm like the sheeple this nation has become. We must not let the camel any further into the tent. I say off with it's head and be done with it.

If I get onto any more lists, I'll become famous.

[carver]

That would be infamous!

[SaddleSarge]

From: Investors.com

Sotomayor Guns For The 2nd Amendment
Posted 06/04/2009 07:06 PM ET


Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities. High court nominee Sonia Sotomayor concurs.

Those Pennsylvania townsfolk bitterly clinging to their guns may have been premature in celebrating the decision in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old gun ban. It barred most of the district's residents from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded or disassembled under trigger lock. If predators broke into your house, some assembly would be required.

When the district rejected his application to keep a firearm in his home to protect his family, Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard, did not think it was a reasonable restriction on his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So he sued.

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment indeed protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

An individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted, Justice Scalia wrote.

Not so fast. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, both of which believe the Constitution prevents citizens from defending themselves.

The Circuit Court decision was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook and joined by Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer. Easterbrook's reasoning is fascinating. According to him, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," Easterbrook wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state." We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution.

Surely he can't be serious. But he is, and agreeing with him is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals examined in Maloney v. Cuomo a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law prohibiting possession of "nunchucks," a martial arts weapon, violated his 2nd Amendment rights. Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal laws and not to states or municipalities.

[OBrien]

Originally Posted by 45nut

OBrien & bcj,


Both of you guys made me spew my diet coke on my screen. Thanks, I needed the good laugh.

Needless to say you are both correct and funny. It's all just a game. A very real, dangerous, nasty, sneaky and cunning game. They are counting on us of all remaining calm like the sheeple this nation has become. We must not let the camel any further into the tent. I say off with it's head and be done with it.

If I get onto any more lists, I'll become famous.

Anytime my friend lol.

Now what do we do when we cut his head off? Basketball anyone?


P.S. Save me a seat on that list.

[Trouble 45-70]

Originally Posted by OBrien

Anytime my friend lol.

Now what do we do when we cut his head off? Basketball anyone?


P.S. Save me a seat on that list.

How do you BB-Q a camel. Is that on one of the other forums?

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by Trouble 45-70

How do you BB-Q a camel. Is that on one of the other forums?

Low and slow, on a really big pit!

[GMFWoodchuck]

Just take a look at my Second Ammendment Shmecond Ammendment if to get my full opinion. No matter what these crooks think, we will always have a right to protect life and limb and family/friends. No law can change that. No religion, no city/state, no nothing. It is our right. The end.

[alhefner]

Somehow, people forgot that every person is born with certain rights. These are called natural or God given rights and exist because the person exists.

The right to life is one of those natural rights and that is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence along with Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

No, most people feel that what we call "Rights" are granted by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. They don't understand that the Bill of Rights is not there to "grant" anything but as a protection of the rights ALREADY granted to every person simply because God saw fit to allow them to exist.

Those rights are granted every being, human or animal, capable of using them! Nobody every blames a wild animal for hurting a human that is trying to harm it or its young. If a rabbit was able to use a firearm that rabbit would have the absolute right to do so and hunting would take on a very new meaning!

I am starting to ramble now so I'll quit.