Bump
Sorry, buddy. You're just wrong. The Supreme Court just hasn't gotten around to ruling that you can't publish articles in their territory yet. Trust me, they will.
Wow that was a long read.
I wonder how much money the lawyers all have made defending DeMar?
He mad some mistakes but is hardly a criminal
With this supreme court the constitution and founding princpipals mean nothing. There is only one way to get rid of a supreme.
Me? I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. Gun bans are unconstitutional, and counting on the Supremes for help you're better off getting a ruling from the music group Supremes.
This author, and virtually every other non-NYC based based author who's mentioned this case, is totally misinterpreting the Dixon case. It's true that Dixon, who had recently moved to NYC from another state, had applied for a gun permit in NYC. However, the notion that he got off practically scot free (compared to the huge penalties on the books in NYC) because it was just a technicality that the permit "had not yet been approved" is very misleading. There was about a one in a million chance that his permit application would ever have been approved. He was just an ordinary working joe, and they NEVER get gun permits approved in NYC.
The reason this guy got let off is that the circumstances of the case (saved his children from an intruder with a mile long rap sheet that the "justice" system obviously should gotten off the streets years earlier) were such that handing down any significant penalty would have caused massive protests, and quite possibly started the ball rolling to get these extremist anti-gun laws off the books. His "crime" was flat out a "felony" under NYC law, and carried a multi-year prison term. He refused to cop a plea to a felony since it would automatically have cost him his job, as would any prison sentence that interfered with his job. So the hoplophobic DA, reluctantly and under extreme political pressure, finally ended up downgrading the charge to a misdemeanor with a prison sentence of a long weekend.
But you can be sure that Dixon's NYC gun permit will NEVER be approved, and that they have taken his gun away from him.
This obscene accusation was no doubt levelled by some representative of local law enforcement or judicial system, eager to distract attention from how the aforementioned agencies aren't trying hard enough to catch these animals quickly and then keep them off the streets.
I'm reading and reading - while scratching my head, as to why this is in the HAWAII REPORTER, then I finally see at the end:
Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism in Evanston, Illinois
Now I wonder if Chicago's two fine newspapers, the Tribune and Sun-Times refused to print this? Nah, they wouldn't do that.
.... Bwaaaaahaha!
btw, This was HUGH news here in the Chi area and IIRC some of Demar's legal matters were handled pro bono and some money was raised for him by Concealed Carry, Inc. of Oak Brook, IL. (pro gun group fighting 'Da Mare', Richie Daley and his gun grabbing minions in Springfield at every turn)
I think the judge lies.
Considering that all federal, state and local officials are required to swear to support and defend the Constitution, non-enforcement is the right thing to do.
Cities like Wilmette, Oal Lawn and Chicago are employing the rubric of the rule of the Illinois Constitution, home rule, and substituting commonly understood principles of rule of law and and police power as caprice power. The legal term police power is an ancient concept, one that under girds the primary and most important reason for government, that of the responsibility to promulgate law necessary for the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the populace. Black's Law dictionary, 6th edition, p.1156 of defines police power as follows:
Police Power.
...adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order, preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.
The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government. Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883.
Note how this definition of police power is circumscribed by the requirement to be exercised within “constitutional limits.” The supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution, not the common law provision of police power. The exercise of police power must be subordinate to the supreme dictates of the Constitution. In the Quilici vs. Morton Grove decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took the most expansive interpretation possible of the phrase "police power" in Article I, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution and said that the right to keep and bear arms is what any particular unit of government says it is under the home rule provisions of the Illinois Constitution. The court held that Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual's liberty or property. In effect, the power of the state legislature has already been usurped by the courts concerning home rule gun bans, and this effectively preempts the right of the state legislature to carve out legislative exceptions to the unconstitutional gun bans enacted under home rule provisions. Just wait until one of these communities decides to appeal Illinois’s recent Self Defense Act passed over Gov. Blagojevich’s veto. They will cite the 7th Circuit Court Morton Grove decision as the basis to overturn the Act.
I consulted with a good friend of mine, who is a constitutional scholar. He gave me black letter law on the constitution. “A Constitution, whether federal or state is not a grant of authority, but a limit. That means that the Second Amendment has such is a limit on legislative authority, i.e. the police power.”
A climate has been created in Illinois wherein local communities such as Morton Grove, Oak lawn, Chicago, Wilmette, and many others have seized upon "police power" has the pretextual cart of gun prohibition to drive the constitutional "horse" of the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers were probably the most astute observers of governmental theories that have ever been gathered at one time in one place in all of history. They were quite aware of the police power provision of English common law, but they did not intend that the police power would modify the Second Amendment’s general protection of the right to keep and bear arms into a general prohibition on a whole class of firearm that are suitable for militia use. This use is for the “people” mentioned in the second clause of the 2nd amendment and is in accord with the provisions of the last Supreme Court decision that directly bore on the Second Amendment, the Miller decision of 1939.
None of this means that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed under any circumstances. The police power can be properly invoked to do so should one employ a firearm under circumstances that can reasonably be construed to cause alarm or harm to another, or in the commission of a crime. It is an entirely appropriate exercise of the police power to seize weapons so used and prosecute any such offenders. But that is hardly the case insofar as Wilmette, Chicago, Morton Grove, and the other units of government that invoke blanket prohibitions of handguns to ALL their residents, who are law abiding and peaceable.
I note that these communities are generally pretty affluent. I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of the residents are mature adults in professions that license them to fly airplanes, practice medicine and surgery, use explosives such as dynamite in construction, design buildings and bridges, and employed in many other occupations that involve a considerable degree of expertise and skill. It should be highly insulting to them to think that NONE of these residents are capable of using an instrument that an 18-year-old private in the military can be taught to use effectively in three days.
It is my earnest hope that discussions of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be reclaimed from the province of emotionalism, junk science, unconstitutional judicial decisions, constitutionally illiterate politicians, anti-gun news editorials, and replaced with logic, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, and a respect for the citizens to whom the inalienable right to keep and bear arms is granted by natural law and protected by the 2nd Amendment.