To: rellimpank
And the Supreme Court will just suck its thumbs and let Chicago ignore the law? I’m sure they’ll do the same if Texas decides it won’t honor the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling allowing the killing of unborn citizens of Texas.
2 posted on
03/28/2013 8:04:26 AM PDT by
txrefugee
To: rellimpank
Blatant violation of civil rights under color of law.
3 posted on
03/28/2013 8:05:46 AM PDT by
piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.b)
To: rellimpank
Illinois is using the Tenth Amendment as a defense of its laws. This could have serious repercussions for the Tenth Amendment.
5 posted on
03/28/2013 8:12:37 AM PDT by
txnativegop
(Fed up with zealots)
To: rellimpank
This is an important precedent. It means that federal gun-bans are not binding upon the states.
7 posted on
03/28/2013 8:19:19 AM PDT by
pabianice
To: rellimpank
Soap box, ballot box, jury box - all gone.
What’s left?
10 posted on
03/28/2013 9:04:33 AM PDT by
NTHockey
(Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
To: rellimpank
How can a State court rule that a Federal Court ruling declaring an Illinois law un-Constitutional doesn’t apply to the State?
11 posted on
03/28/2013 9:06:52 AM PDT by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
To: rellimpank
Police say they continue to arrest those who violate the state's ban on carrying a gun in public,Ummm, if properly concealed, how does a LEO know that someone is carry a sidearm?
13 posted on
03/28/2013 9:44:23 AM PDT by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(The Constitution does not guarantee public safety, it guarantees liberty.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson