Posted on 06/29/2010 7:16:04 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Chicago (AP) - A Supreme Court ruling finding that Americans have the right to bear arms anywhere they live almost certainly means the end of Chicago's decades-old handgun ban, but it may not make handgun ownership there much easier if the city's powerful mayor has his way.
Shortly after the high court voted 5-4 Monday along familiar ideological lines -- with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed -- Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said officials were already at work rewriting the city ordinance to adhere to the court ruling while protecting Chicago residents from gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
To hell with the law.
How can I be expected to control these peons if they have guns?
Democrats and the law just do not get along. But tell me something I don’t know, right? After all, just look at our new regime in Washington.
Good. He’ll lose.
He will, of course, make sure his security detail is disarmed, right? I mean, he'll lead by example, yes?
maybe not if he waits until kagan is in.... :(
Like I mentioned in a similar thread yesterday — I fervently hope there’s an exodus of businesses and taxpayers from that wretched den of corruption. I would LOVE to see Chicago knocked to its knees.
"What we're dealin' with here is a complete lack o' respect for the law!"
Maybe, maybe not. The decision was a bit contradictory when it said that the right to own a firearm for self protection was a fundamental constitutional right, then went on to say that some 'reasonable restrictions' were permissible. They didn't define 'reasonable restrictions' and if something is a fundamental right then one would expect the number of restrictions would be few or none. Count on Daley and other gun control governments to test exactly what 'reasonable restrictions' are.
My question on this is this: To which other of the 10 Amendments would the courts apply this?
The anti-gunners are a guilt and fear cult. Go to any liberal site and it boils down to white liberals trying to guilt up their non-liberal Red Staters all because they live in absolute fear of the criminals which are usually minority and therefore no lib can touch them only the gun issue. In summation the white lib anti-gunner is pathetic.
Throw the dick head in jail for contempt.
I only read a few parts of the decision, but it seemed vague to the point of being nearly useless to me. At best, it confirmed SOME right...but left unanswered how much. And it seems to me the anti-gun localities will answer 1%, and leave it to us to challenge them one by one while the cities hope a conservative on the court dies.
As in most things, this is an issue that needs to be fought at the ballot box. The people of Chicago, dead or alive, vote for Daley - so they have no excuse when they are robbed or killed. They don’t WANT to fight back! They don’t WANT freedom! If they did, they’d move to Arizona...
The USSC has ruled that there is a fundamental right to own a firearm for defense at home. But, there is room for a reasonable restriction. Therefore, since guns are dangerous, ownership is prohibited.
And THAT, to the Democrats, would be reasonable.
Let’s take another fundamental right - the right to live.
It would be absolutely ridiculous to say that some “reasonable restrictions” should be allowed on that right.
I know. Libs DO apply “reasonable restrictions” on lives that just happen to be inside a woman’s womb.
And, yes, I consider that absolutely ridiculous.
The sheeperals want others to take care of their basic responsibilities (like personal safety),
and the “shepherd” libs step up and gladly assume that power over them.
He IS the law.
I was thinking the new law would say you can own a gun, but not the bullets.
Nothing in the decision says anything about ‘bullet’ ownership. /liberal cap off.
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.