Justices signal end to Chicago ban on handguns

Chicago Breaking News ^ | 3-2-10

[STARWISE]

Most of the Supreme Court justices who two years ago said the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun rights signaled during arguments today they are ready to extend this right nationwide and to use it to strike down some state and local gun regulations.

[AAABEST]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy described the individual right to a gun as being of "fundamental character," like the right to freedom of speech. "If it is not fundamental, then Heller is wrong...

There's our fifth vote - case closed. Kennedy was the only justice out of the five needed who anyone considered wobbly.

The only thing we need to worry about now is if the opinion will be written in such a way that crafty liberals will be able to drive a truck through the language.

[FreedomPoster]

Tancredo suggested a civics literacy test in his talk at the National Tea Party Convention, and was widely hailed by the MSM as a RACIST! for doing so.

But yes, same logic. Weaker, actually, as there is no enumerate right to vote.

[Red in Blue PA]

Why don’t gun owners argue for a “right to privacy” the way the abortion crowd does? If they have a right to privacy, why not us?

Turn their arguments around on them!

[Above My Pay Grade]

I don’t think those time frames are by any means set in stone. The current court has shown a willingness to take another look at these liberal rulings.

[Red in Blue PA]

That is a misattributed Freud quote.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud’s works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay “Guns, Murders, and the Constitution” (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in “Neurotic Attachment to Guns” in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner:
Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.
Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud’s ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture “Symbolism in Dreams” in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis on some internet forum pages: alt.quotations, uk.politics.guns, talk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns , etc.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

[Waco]

It’s the MOST important right insured by the Constitution. (Mao said so)

[Red in Blue PA]

Someone needs to show daily these articles:

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

[Red in Blue PA]

daily should read Daly

[kitchen]

Some of the [Chicago] gangs have better weapons than the police.

What? The gangs carry custom 1911s and the cops have Glocks?

[primeval patriot]

Notice the names of those “white” males?

[Lazamataz]

To Freepers who say any kind of regulation on guns is wrong....you need to get a grip.

I agree.

you need to get a grip. Shall not be infringed does not mean some regulations can’t be there.

Problem is, there are some already:

1. Don't kill innocent people with your gun.
2. Don't try to kill innocent people with your gun.
3. Don't fire your gun in a manner in which it will kill innocent people.
4. Don't brandish your gun menacingly at people who are innocent.

Besides those four, I can't think of any more that are needed.

[xjcsa]

Justices are not permitted to answer questions that are not asked ... they are deciding an individual case, not crafting legislation about the limitations of the Second amendment. The right to carry is not what the case is about. Further questions must be answered in further cases.

The campaign finance ruling didn't exactly work that way.

[hoosiermama]

Don’t shot at a deer in my front yard where my kids are playing....Stupid city folks!

[Brytani]

I just finished reading the BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE filed by th ADL in support of Chicago, in defense of retaining the ban on firearms ownership.

Basically the ADL’s contention is - The country is filled with hate groups, anti-government groups and hate criminals. The US is in a “rage” over Obama’s election; therefore everyone is going to purchase a gun and go on a shooting spree.

According to their warped logic any anti-Government protest is hate, every crime is hate related, anti-government speech is hate, objection to Obama is; yes you got it, hate.

OH NOES!!!

Americans should have no constitutional rights until they walk in lock-step with the ADL’s position on every issue. They even defend, as they call it, “common sense” restrictions on speech, as a reason to ban firearms.

I was surprised they didn’t name Tea Parties, Townhall meetings and marches on DC as hate movements; though you can read their “hate” of them between the lines as they claim hate groups are on the rise since Obama was put into office. We can’t have people speaking out against “The Won” or the government in the ADL’s fantasy world.

Here’s to hope the USSC slaps down Chicago along with the ADL and restores rights the government and courts never had the power to take away in the first place.

[SnakeDoctor]

Campaign Finance was a challenge to the CFR law ... the Court struck down portions of the CFR law.

As I understand it, this case is not a challenge to an anti-carry law ... it is a challenge to an anti-ownership law. The Court cannot strike down a law that was not asserted by law enforcement, and thus isn’t challenged.

SnakeDoc

[dinoparty]

Your reasoning would make sense, but the framers did not envision that any of the bill of rights would restrict the states, even the 2nd Amendment. They were forming a Federal government. The restrictions in the first 10 amendments were restrictions on the federal government.

That said, if the incorporation doctrine is going to be the law of the land, then it should apply to the 2nd Amendment even more so than it should apply to the other rights, IMO.

[Dick Bachert]

Thanks for the correction but I shall perpetuate the fraud in much the same manner the left abuses facts in attempting to defeat our freedoms.

Any of Dr. Freud’s ancestors who wish to bring an action against me are free to do so.

And, at my age, you really don’t expect me to spend several hours remastering and reposting that video, do you? :-))
What I MAY do is insert a notation into the video to clarify the matter.

Thanks again for the correction.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.

[Brytani]

What about current restriction on firearm ownership on those who are felons or are mentally unstable to the point of being dangerous to others?

Would the founders have found those restrictions permissible or acceptable?

Should they remain for ‘the public good” as is argued?

I don’t see the courts overturning either of those restrictions but should they given the “no infringement” argument?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Exactly. Elections matter. Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court matter.