Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS ruling shows how far gun rights have come
The Washington Examiner ^ | July 4, 2010 | Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Posted on 07/04/2010 3:48:56 AM PDT by Scanian

Topping last week's legal stories was the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment -- which the Supreme Court just two years ago interpreted to protect an individual right to own a gun -- also protects the individual right to own a gun against state and local interference.

Many people were unimpressed, regarding this as a statement of the obvious. Others -- like Rush Limbaugh -- were alarmed, noting that what should have been an obvious statement of a right specifically protected in the Constitution nonetheless made it by a bare 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.

Both of these views have their merit, but because I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, let me offer a positive lesson from this experience, one with relevance for today's motivated Tea Party activists and depressed conservatives and libertarians alike. Because the story of the Second Amendment, and of gun rights generally, over the past two decades is a story that offers hope for those interested in protecting and restoring liberty in all sorts of areas.

Nowadays, it's hard to find a Democrat outside of the party's deepest-blue sanctuary cities who will argue against private ownership of guns.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: guncontrol; individualrights; mcdonaldvchicago; supremes

1 posted on 07/04/2010 3:49:00 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Not really, places like Chicago can still make it nearly impossible for most citizens to own a gun. All they have to do is make it too expensive or physically difficult.

The question of "reasonable" gun control is still unanswered.

2 posted on 07/04/2010 4:08:09 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
My worry is that the Court has 'discovered' a new right somewhere in the Constitution, that of keeping a handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense (subject to police permission), and replaced the Second Amendment with it entire. The question of whether we have an unconditional RKBA - that is, one as unconditional as, say, freedom of speech is - has been shunted aside.
3 posted on 07/04/2010 4:32:52 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

“SCOTUS ruling shows how far gun rights have come”

The sad, sick part of this entire ‘issue’ is that it is an issue, at all. The Second Amendment is clear and succinct. There should be NO argument over its meaning.

Or course, that never stopped the progressives, socialists, or other assorted liberals...

It’s time to take back the country. Reaffirming the Second Amendment is a good place to start.


4 posted on 07/04/2010 4:48:48 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM
If SCOTUS did what they are supposed to do, i.e. rule on the meaning of the words in the Constitution, the vote would have been 9-0 in DC and the Chicago suit would never have had to happen.

As long as there are libs, we must stay alert, because these bastards will never quit.

5 posted on 07/04/2010 4:59:44 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Grut
The question of whether we have an unconditional RKBA - that is, one as unconditional as, say, freedom of speech is - has been shunted aside.

I am about as libertarian as one can get, but there is a difference. A nutcase with freedom of speech is a diminished threat to a free society (there is the example of a Hitler, or any other charismatic, to worry about). But a nutcase with a gun is a different matter entirely, and I am quite ok with access to firearms being restricted for children, felons (real felons rapists, murderers, arsonists, burglers, etc., I don't mean our modern make believe felons), and the mentally disturbed.

6 posted on 07/04/2010 5:24:52 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
*** Not really, places like Chicago can still make it nearly impossible for most citizens to own a gun. All they have to do is make it too expensive or physically difficult. ***

And that's exactly what Daley's new Gun Law does (there was a thread on it yesterday).

Out of all the items in it that was delineated in the article, only one mirrors IL's state law -- on transporting a weapon. Every thing else is more restrictive. And one part even surpasses Federal Law and BATF requirements for being able to get a Dealer or C&R (collector) License!

In fact the winner of the Chicago Gun Lawsuit, Mr McDonald, 'prolly' won't be able to go through all the hoops, and COSTS, to get Daley's fricken 'gun permit'. So in fact, Mr McDonald won -- nothing.

But all is not lost, 'yet'. It's my understanding a new lawsuit is already awaiting to be filed against Daley. oops I mean 'Chicago' (/s). And there is still that IL State Law that exempts any person, in any city, who uses an 'illegal gun' in defense of his life, family, or property.

Daley just likes wasting *his* taxpayer's money on frivolous 'carp'.

7 posted on 07/04/2010 5:46:27 AM PDT by Condor51 (SAT CONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Since when is it OK to charge ANY fee to exercise a constitutional right?
This should be the next pro-gun approach.


8 posted on 07/04/2010 5:54:39 AM PDT by Flintlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The link is not working


9 posted on 07/04/2010 6:06:28 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Mr. McDonald and I will most likely be dead before this ends, SCOTUS is playing politics and they know it! all SCOTUS did was create a situation with no winners or losers in the political game.


10 posted on 07/04/2010 6:09:32 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Others -- like Rush Limbaugh -- were alarmed, noting that what should have been an obvious statement of a right specifically protected in the Constitution

That is correct, the Thomas statement about the fourteenth was irrelevant to original intent.

11 posted on 07/04/2010 6:30:58 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
*** Since when is it OK to charge ANY fee to exercise a constitutional right? This should be the next pro-gun approach. ***

I concur.

The costs I was referring to was for the 'mandatory firearm safety classes' that all permit seekers must take and pass.

An older gentleman like Mr McDonald is 'prolly' on Social Security and doesn't have the extra cash laying around for those. And if he, or someone like him, doesn't own a car, getting to a Gun Shop in a suburb where these safety classes, and gun ranges are at will be difficult at the least.

On those two items alone, I would definitely classify as, 'an infringement' and contrary to the 2A and the two SCOTS decisions. And what the Permit (Registration) 'Fee' will be, I have no idea, I haven't seen that. But knowing Daley, he'll make it as unreasonable as legally possible.

So even though Mr McDonald 'won' in court, in reality he didn't win anything, 'for himself'.

an aside:
The cost for an IL FOID Card(1) is *only* $10.00 but now it's good for Ten Years. It used to be only valid for Three Years and that was a pain in the rear. And the color photo you must also submit with your FOID application can be had at a Walgreen's Drug store for about $7.00 (IIRC) if you can't take and print a picture yourself at home you have that 'extra' cost too.

(1) Anyone who even wants to TOUCH a Firearm or even a 'bullet' in IL must have a Valid FOID Card. So if I have one, and the wife doesn't, 'technically' she can't even touch my guns or ammo. This is the same in any IL Gun Shop. You must first show your FOID Card and then the Salesman will hand you a weapon to look at.

12 posted on 07/04/2010 7:49:42 AM PDT by Condor51 (SAT CONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
*** Mr. McDonald and I will most likely be dead before this ends, SCOTUS is playing politics and they know it! all SCOTUS did was create a situation with no winners or losers in the political game. ***

Yep me too. I'll also 'be gone' before this is 'finalized'.

And its crap like what Daley is pulling, and all the Dems have, is why we fled Chicago when we got married back in '75. And I made sure we even left Crook County which the RATS have always had *almost* complete control.

13 posted on 07/04/2010 7:58:59 AM PDT by Condor51 (SAT CONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; Grut
But a nutcase with a gun is a different matter entirely, and I am quite ok with access to firearms being restricted for children, felons (real felons rapists, murderers, arsonists, burglers, etc., I don't mean our modern make believe felons), and the mentally disturbed.

No one on this forum advocates giving the same rights to felons(all the ones you mention are felons)mentally ill people. Instant background checks are fine with all of us. Telling us we have to have a permit to carry or that we can't carry outside of our homes are not alright with us.

14 posted on 07/04/2010 8:12:45 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
AndyJackson said: "But a nutcase with a gun is a different matter entirely,..."

You must have a boatload of new laws in mind to prevent such people from having knives, cars, or access to gasoline.

15 posted on 07/04/2010 9:44:41 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson