Banning of self defence/7th US Circuit

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Jun 4, 2009.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,906
    Location:
    New Mexico
    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



    [​IMG]
    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.
  2. OBrien

    OBrien New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Bangor Maine
    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.
  3. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    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:rolleyes::rolleyes:


    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:rolleyes:
  4. 45nut

    45nut Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    OBrien & bcj,


    Both of you guys made me spew my diet coke on my screen. :D :D 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. :eek::D :rolleyes:
  5. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    17,890
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    That would be infamous!:D:eek:;)
  6. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    From: Investors.com

  7. OBrien

    OBrien New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Bangor Maine


    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.
  8. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,703
    Location:
    NE Ar. W. of Black River
    How do you BB-Q a camel. Is that on one of the other forums?
  9. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    Low and slow, on a really big pit!:eek::D
  10. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,369
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    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.
  11. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Reno, NV
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment "No Obstacle" to Banning Automatic Weapons Oct 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum ATF banning guns by changing definitions Apr 18, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Speaking of banning by tax regulation (long) Apr 19, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Hannity - Will banning guns benefit Mexico? Feb 27, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Would banning firearms... Aug 21, 2007

Share This Page