"Guns are not healthy for children and other living things. Consequently we disapprove the 2nd amendment." US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Court Sensitivity Administrator
Posted on 05/05/2015 8:26:25 AM PDT by HammerT
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on last week allowing a Chicago-area gun and magazine ban to stand. Such bans are justifiable, according to the court, merely on the basis that they “may increase the public’s sense of safety.”
The case, Friedman v. Highland Park, was filed in 2013, and sought to invalidate a city ordinance that banned “assault weapons or large capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).”
[..]
Remarkably, the majority went on to suggest that even if the ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority wrote, “Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events.”
The majority acknowledged that “assault weapons” can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter and more accurate than alternative options and can be wielded more effectively by householders. Yet they quickly threw their own logic aside to reassert the city’s interest in reducing perceived risk over the tangible benefits that that modern firearms provide to their owners. “If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the opinion argued.
Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion.
[..]
Judge Manion’s reminder that when it comes to our fundamental rights, “The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them,” cannot be overemphasized.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
What you posted is a good argument. Some are trying to say that we shouldn’t have a Mohammed cartoon contest because it offends Muslims and could incite violence. What about gay pride parades? Muslims are offended by gays too, and they kill them.
Yes, most definitely. I tell them that I prefer a conversation based on facts and logic.
Let's put that argument to better use, what if banning muslims not only makes me feel safer, but actually does make me safer?
Therefore, I'm guessing the odds favor a reversal of Easterbrook's opinion either by an en banc decision of the full 7th Circuit or by the SCOTUS.
"Guns are not healthy for children and other living things. Consequently we disapprove the 2nd amendment." US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Court Sensitivity Administrator
You will need to plan to enter Reeducation 101 when the “safety for all camps” open!
Bullies fear guns and corporal punishment or a good punch in the mouth. Those loudmouths at OWS or any of the others that get in your face have decided that any physical retribution no matter how slight is punishable by the state.
Will a ban on young black males in hoodies and baggy pants be allowed?
[sarc]
Well I know I FEEL safer when
- gays and pedofiles are not allowed to live in my neighborhood.
- unions are not allowed to organize
- Muslims are not allowed to build a mosque
- ....
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
/sarc
This is one in a large tangle of issues.
Bullies are fine with guns or whoopin’s or punches as long as they are the ones dealing them out...
NOT being able to feel, is interestingly tied to sociopathy.
The problem isn’t feelings.
The problem is feelings that aren’t tied to anything greater.
Illegal decision.
Appeal.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Sounds pretty dang infringy to me!
Cowardly leftists!
I am beginning to think that maybe we should just change the national anthem from Star-Spangled Banner to “Feelings”! That is how ridiculous this country has become courtesy of Libtards.
I would feel safer if liberals never again spoke in public. Does that mean we can legally infringe on the free speech rights of America’s enemies? By this judge’s logic, the First Amendment rights of democrats are at risk.
“We have judges today who don’t even care about the law and most of those are appointed by Democrats.”
This is the reason for the big push to federalize the police.
Federal police enforce federal laws and trials are conducted by federal judges appointed by dems.
Laws can then made by dem appointed judges without the input of the citizens and their representatives.
How many people here vote to impeach those two appellate court justices so they will FEEL safer in the community?
Well, if that’s the way you FEEL, then it must be the law of the land then...
You will note as Rush did yesterday, that our comrades on the nation’s socialist left only seem to be concerned about ‘selected’ offenses to the Islamic Death cult.
This is because their agenda of suppressing dissent goes along with the Islamic Death cult’s agenda.
As far as other parts of what ‘offends’ the Muslims.....
Would that make you feel safer?
Then by the same ‘logic’.....
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.