Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by CMfromIL, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. CMfromIL

    CMfromIL New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    IL
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2821015920100628

    This is a good thing!
  2. rentalguy1

    rentalguy1 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    The mountains of NE TN.
    5-4 split as expected. I wonder if this could be used in my home state to turn over bans on legal concealed carry in publicly funded places, such as city parks?
  3. red14

    red14 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,936
    Location:
    N FLA
    This is great news, especially for Chicago
    and it's #1 gun hater.
  4. Insulation Tim

    Insulation Tim Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,469
    Location:
    Ohio
    What concerns me the most about the present Supreme Court is that it appears that the justices vote along party lines or ideaology rather than a legal scholarship interpretation of the Constitution.

    As noted above, it was the typical 5:4 split and my guess is that the "5" are always the same "5" and the "4" are always the same "4".
  5. lawdawg

    lawdawg Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    South Alabama
    Kinda scary when you realize who is in the White House now to nominate new Supreme Court Justices, and who is in Congress to confirm them. And how many may be appointed in the coming years.
  6. wpage

    wpage Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,482
    Elena Kagan will throw that vote the other way...
    Once she gets the nod.
  7. rglbegl

    rglbegl New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Dana point CA
    5-4 is BS!!!!

    The U.S. supreme court has 4 members that voted against the U.S. Constitution!!!!!
    I know there is a little more to it than that, but when it boils down, that is what happened.
  8. Big ugly

    Big ugly New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,682
    Location:
    Knoxville Tennessee
    The supreme court is just as bad as the other branches of government. The supreme court should be free of political and party ties and base their decisions on no bias political BS. Unfortunately our government is so corupt they cant see past their own pockets.
  9. durk

    durk New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,027
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    +1 Should have been 9 - 0
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  10. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    How dumb is this guy, honestly? Why would "gun criminals" try to go around a law? Isn't that the definition of a criminal? One who doesn't follow the law?

    Yeah, okay. That's why the Supreme Court struck down the ban in DC. That must be why more and more states have been not only striking down gun bans, but handing out permits to carry.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  11. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    Yeah it's pretty sad isn't it?
  12. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Excellent. I figured this was the way it would go, but there's always a nagging worry.

    I hope Chigago residents are on their way to shops and ranges this week to celebrate.
  13. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,854
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
  14. rglbegl

    rglbegl New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Dana point CA
  15. Jim K

    Jim K New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,400
    Kagan is replacing Stevens, one of the so-called "liberal" justices, so the balance on the court will not change. If Obama gets a chance to appoint another justice, the balance will shift dramatically with 5 left wing justices who believe, as Kagan does, that the Constitution is play-dough to be molded any way the SC "progressives" want.

    Jim
  16. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    In the State of Washington, all judicial appointments are 'non-partisan'.

    So where does politics and feel good measures enter the debate? The SCotUS should be intrepreting law. There is no room for personal idealism.

    Or did I miss something again? Seems like I've been doing a lot of that lately.:rolleyes:

    The Amendments to the Constitution read clear as day to me. I see little or no ambiguity in any of them. The wording of the 1st and 2nd is constructed in a way that there should be no doubt to their intent. When the framers wrote this document, they did in a way that may be scrutinized, yet would be unrefuteable.

    When they wrote about the right to bear arms, I don't think they were referring to big nasty omnivores and people with a couple limbs attached to their torso.

    Interesting antonyms:

    Right vs Gift
    Right vs Left
    Right vs Wrong

    A Gift from the Left is Wrong.
  17. papawed

    papawed New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    I am not a lawyer. I think this is a huge precedent for the right to keep and bear arms.

    Someone with a legal background, please interput this ruling, and tell us what it means for our future continued right.

    This may be the best thing that has happened since "the Obama change" started". I'll bet he is not happy.
  18. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    I too am not a lawyer.

    But doesn't a precedent stand for anything? Don't any other challanges have to overcome the prior ruling?
  19. rentalguy1

    rentalguy1 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    The mountains of NE TN.
    From everything I've read, this ruling will not change very much at all. They left it open for States, counties, and cities to enact draconian laws that make it nearly impossible to obtain a handgun. All they said was that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional. So now all a city has to do is require permits prior to purchase. The requirements to obtain a permit can be as tough and as expensive as they want them to be. They can also drag their feet on issuing a permit for as long as they want, and it would be legal. This was not really that big of a win at all...
  20. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    Quote: "As noted above, it was the typical 5:4 split and my guess is that the "5" are always the same "5" and the "4" are always the same "4".[/QUOTE]

    When the decision is 5-4, no. 5 is Justice Kennedy. He is the swing vote.

    Hopefully, this decision will lay to rest the canard about "activist" courts only doing harm. Activist courts can be good or bad, depending upon what side you are on, and this case proves it also works for the right. Overturning over 220 yrs. of "settled" law is as "activist" as you can get.

    I'm going to read the full text now, and whoa, is it a long one. Interesting note; Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Very unusual for him to write anything more than what he's required.
    Hopefully my state of Illinois can get concealed carry. Don't know yet, but this case wasn't about "bearing" arms, that will likely be another suit.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court is Hearing a Major Gun Rights Case This Week Jan 23, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NY Supreme Court Considers SAFE Act Injunction Feb 28, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court Feb 19, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Supreme Court fight looms over right to carry a gun Dec 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Researching the 2nd and the Supreme Courts take, something scary here. Nov 18, 2012