Posted on 06/28/2010 5:27:47 PM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court yesterday gunned down the Windy City's attempt to undermine the Second Amendment rights of its residents. In the closely divided McDonald v. Chicago decision, the justices expanded on 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller ruling by making it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies in all 50 states, not just federal enclaves like the District. Law-abiding gun owners can find a lot to celebrate in this decision.
Nonetheless, the court left a number of unsettled issues that will form the new battleground for gun rights for years to come. The decision recognized that certain ownership restrictions might be permissible without specifying acceptable limits. With the First Amendment, another "incorporated" right, the government decided that certain types of political speech should be limited through campaign-finance regulations. In the name of "protecting safety," we can expect bureaucrats to likewise concoct schemes to evade the Second Amendment protections.
The District, for example, rewrote its rules in the wake of Heller so that they would be only slightly less restrictive. In effect, guns are still banned in the nation's capital for all but the most persistent and wealthy individuals. The city requires two tests and four trips to the police station and payment of up to $550 before one can get a handgun permit. A whole class of handguns - semiautomatics with magazines - is still forbidden. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley promises to follow the District's lead and make gun ownership even more costly in his town.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Major difference now is that the 2nd has been Incorporated. Mayor Daley will be personally sued for violation of rights. Maybe when he’s penniless from defending himself in these lawsuits, he’ll give up. If not, he’ll have nothing when it’s over.
The decision did NOT expand the Second Amendment....it simply acknowledges what was/is.
Damn.
“Settled Law” now.
That'd be nice, but when it finally gets through his thick skull he'll have a change of heart and maybe crawl back under his rock.
Exactly! affirms, uncontracts, reasserts, disgronifies, makes clear to blithering idiots, all those but NOT expands.
You’re correct but I think they meant expanded the Heller case to all states.
“Shortshanks” Dick Daley is just a punk, and a semi-literate one, at that.
Nothing is “settled” with libs on the loose. They’ll reverse anything anywhere to get what they want.
That bugged me too. AP said "extend". What a crock! Damn leftists!
So these 4 scumbags can just vote to nullify the 2nd amendment without consequence?
So if the communist in chief gets to appoint a third sex pervert bull dyke marxist SOB to the Supreme Court, all of a sudden the original intent of the Founders with respect to the Constitution means nothing?
WAR is on the horizon.
The “shocker” is that 4 of the so-called supremes voted against the 2nd amendment. These leftists are truly in need of an education.
I really don't give a damn what shorty says... if I am forced to visit that sad-sack liberal city, my iron goes with me.
Now if they will allow veterans with 100% disabality and a caregiver, to have a fire arm again!
Great description, if I don't say so myself (from a non-wise, non-latina ;^)
We shouldn't be too hard on these communist wanna-bees. Let's say a couple of cities go up in smoke, for instance, it's possible they might have reservations and possibly a change of heart at the sight of all the death and mayhem brought by those who put them in office. (Liberals Gone Wild)
All it means is that Chicago will, like NYC and other enclaves, pass laws laying out criteria for handgun permit ownership that will, in essence, limit ownership to the point of making this win meaningless. See, for example, how D.C has already enacted draconian regulations that have satisfied the courts as reasonable.
I agree. The ruling was stupid...and dangerous. Using Alito’s logic...cities could start up a poll tax again.
2nd amendment rights are inalienable. That means that those rights exist because we exist...not because some black robe judge says it exists...and not because a piece of paper called the Constitution codified it.
The ruling could have been explained in one page...instead it took over 200.
You sort of said it all, but here’s the big picture:
They are really suggesting that the states’ legislatures may decided for themselves whether to engage in useless feel good nullification of the second amendment. In Montana, you would have more guns than people and no crime. In Chicago, you would have no registered guns and a murder a minute. It’s up to the states.
The irony is that the states are circumscribed on abortion, G-d forbid anyone has to drive to a Liberal state for that! Read Roe v. Wade about a “right” under the “penumbra” of 4 amendments that apply to all states.
The historical analogy though is the court packing scheme of the 30’s to push through a socialist agenda. If Manhattan Bull Dyke slips by and one more judge dies, you better move to Montana or Idaho.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.