Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It
by Jason AdkinsToday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm its citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns, or whether gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, it will reconsider whether courts should play a more robust role in the protection of the basic liberties of the people.
Such a statement may seem counterintuitive. Of course courts protect rights; it’s their job to interpret the Constitution to do just that.
But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text. That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints. Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share. It seems crazy that we would let legislatures determine when laws they themselves create violate the Constitution. But that is exactly what has happened. We’ve let the fox guard the henhouse.
Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication. And judicial abdication is every bit as dangerous as judicial activism, and arguably even more so because it allows politicians to disregard whatever constitutional limits they find inconvenient, which leads to unchecked expansion of government power.
A glaring example of judicial abdication is the 1873 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court known as the Slaughter-House Cases—a case that legal scholars from every political persuasion believe was wrongly decided. Slaughter-House involved a government-created butcher monopoly in the City of New Orleans. If butchers wanted to work, they had to pay to use a single government-sanctioned private slaughterhouse. Naturally, those whose rights were being violated by this action sued, arguing the recently adopted Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment protected their right to pursue the occupation of their choice free from illegitimate government regulations.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. In a 5-4 decision that remains controversial to this day, it concluded the Privileges or Immunities Clause—against all evidence—protected only a few basic rights inherent in national citizenship, such as the right to travel across state lines and the right to petition the government. In doing so, it eviscerated a clause of the Constitution meant specifically to protect the liberties of the people—particularly newly freed black slaves and their white supporters—from state and local government infringement.
The 13th Amendment brought a legal end to slavery. But the 14th Amendment was enacted to ensure that the freedom of the former slaves was meaningful. Thus, no government could deny the multitude of “privileges or immunities” inherent in citizenship.
There was a general consensus that the term “privileges or immunities” protected important rights necessary to live a decent and productive life, such as own property, earn an honest living, participate in politics, and own a gun for self-protection. But the term was left open-ended to protect against the many newfangled ways racist governments could deny opportunities to newly free black and their white supporters.
It’s not surprising that the chief legacy of Slaughter-House is Jim Crow, and the century of oppression suffered by blacks at the hands of unjust laws that denied them real opportunity. But that legacy extends to all Americans, especially those who’ve suffered—like the butchers in New Orleans—from unreasonable regulations and licensing schemes that deny them the right to earn an honest living. Ask nearly any small businessperson one of the most difficult challenges they face and you will get a common response: big government regulations—like those that find their roots in Slaughter-House.
Thus, McDonald is more than a gun case. McDonald represents an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to resurrect the Privileges or Immunities Clause and abandon its tainted history of judicial abdication. Once again, the Court could take seriously its vital role of enforcing the Constitution—all of it—against the continued onslaught of government power.
To ensure that we live in a nation characterized by islands of government in a sea of liberty—and not the other way around—it is imperative that the Court take advantage of this all-too-rare opportunity in McDonald to overturn Slaughter-House and restore itself as an engaged and co-equal branch of government when it comes to the protection of our rights.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
191 Comments
I sure hope McDonald prevails.
It will serve notice on alot of folks. All eyes will be on the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how Sotamayor opines.
Behind this, in the pipeline, there is an interesting gun case coming front and center in Montana. It will turn things on end also.
"From my cold dead hands"
Interesting support article:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
The Constitution, you are either for ALL of it or none of it, no more "compromise", no more making end runs "around" it!
The centerpiece of progressivism is dismantling it piece by piece, "progressively"…
Chicago + Constitutionality=oxymoron. If O'Bumble gets his way, this would be a national restriction.
Judge Napolitano was on Fox yesterday and he thinks that McDonald will win by a 5/4 decision with dodomayor writing the minority opinion. Let's hope he gets it right!
gun ownership is a “privilege” of citizenship protected by the U.S. Constitution.
This wording is worriesome.
The constitution gives us rights not privileges.
Priveleges are at the discrimination of the stats, rights are from God.
It is going to be Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens against Mac, and…….
of course,…Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito for Mac, with ……
Kennedy the deciding vote for Mac…….
Hence. OUR side will also be able to have guns in the City of Chicago.
There is a CNN Poll that is worded in a way that if you are no careful you can be tricked.
Read the Question Carefully –
Should the Supreme Court uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun ban?
http://www.cnn.com/JUSTICE/
Poll is at bottom of page.
Results so far:
Should the Supreme Court uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun ban?
Yes 51% 28735
No 49% 27713
Total votes: 56448
The notion that the Second only applies to militias, the first of two inane red-herring conclusions by anti-Second people, seems odd when all the other rights are protected for individuals.
The second Second lie is that militias are the State or National military – which are instruments of government – the very thing meant to be kept at bay by an armed populace.
I remember that statement well. I believe I was
watching C-Span when Charlton Heston made
that speech….
Here's the You-Tube of him saying it……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw
That any justice would rule against what was the plain intent of the Founders is a national disgrace.
Without the Second Amendment the Constitution is nothing but words.
as someone earlier has said, most people get it wrong, when they say the constitution gives us rights. the constitution states that the rights listed were given to us by god, and limits the government from taking them away from us, not the other way around. we have the right of free speach, and to bear arms…, the government is restricted from taking those rights away from us. when played against the healthcare debate, no right that us citizens have cost any money. my right to speach, does not give me a microphone, my right to bear arms, does not hand me the weapon of my choice. so if healthcare is a right, it would also be my right to pay for it myself.
The constitution was not a perfect document. This includes the fact that slavery was permitted as a compromise. It probably couldn't have been completed without that compromise.
But their should be no mistake about the individuals right to keep and bear arms was crystal clear and was not a compromise issue then or now.
Today is the beginning of the end of the progressive era of dominance. While it will be June before some will be forced to admit what takes place today, March 2, 2010 is a profound day. While guns have been used by media to ignore that this case was coming, it's lying by omission will not stop the decision from coming.
Black people across this country should be fired up, but they aren't. They have been misled. This is the reperation they have been seeking and they don;t even realize it is happening. Interestingly, this is happening in spite of a black president, bot because of one – for Obama opposes this 100%.
I look forward to Clarence writing a decision that puts Liberty for ALL people in this country back on the table.
I also look forward to Mayor Daley (Chicago) having to concede that the people of Illinois are no longer his subjects and that he must relent before the inalienable rights recognized in the American Constitution.
Illinois will be forced to make MAJOR changes in it's code and very well could be forced to amend it's own state constitution. "Subject only to the police power" should be stricken from that document- as the Chicago dominated police state is coming to an end.
Rights and Privileges are the same thing. That is exactly what this case is about my friend.
Not a chance of sotomayor writing this. Clarence will write it. Soto may just shock some people though, she might just agree with Clarence.
Sotomayor will come down on the anti-gun side. She believes that the Constitution means what she wants it to mean, when she wants it to mean it. And she certainly does not want power in the hands of ordinary citizens.
I just voted and the results are presently 50/50. 8:55 AM Central time.
Progressives and Liberals are about to find out that inalienable rights are not subject to the will or whim of the majority.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
[...] Read the rest. Posted by Kevin at 8:04 AM Tagged with: Constitution, Second Amendment, US Supreme Court [...]
from my icy rotting mitts
A proper decision on the 14th in the McDonald case will lead to a proper decision on the Tenth.
Liberty is on the March!
All rights are not protected today Big D, especially in terms of state and local governments. It's called the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
Have to disagree. Driving a car is a privilege that can be taken away or never granted. Rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, are "Endowed by their Creator". The second amendment is just such a right. It can be regulated to some extent, but never taken away from a law abiding citizen.
Um, did you miss DC v. Heller? The 2nd amendment is an individual right, it is decided law. But keep beating that horse.
Yeah Cowboy, it'll be very interesting to see the outcome in Montana, the result may be a cottage industry sprouting up there.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Right of travel. Saying a car transforms a right into something that isn't a right is like saying typing on the internet isn't a free speech right.
In Illinois, there is no way to exercise the right to carry a firearm. No way whatsoever. THis is called "regulation"
I understand it is hard to understand something of this nature, but rights and privileges are the same thing. At issue in this case is this : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Privileges or Immunities = Rights.
No such thing happened. DC v. Heller actually acknowledged that gun registration is allowed!!!!!! But go back to sleep like a good NRA clown.
So how then does Illinois maintain a ban almost identical to D.C?
Folks don't realize that the Bill of Rights, meaning the Constitution itself, doesn't apply to the states on it's own merit. This as a result of SCOTUS decisions so long ago.
Heck Chicago is actually making that very case today before the Supreme Court that it doesn't apply now and should not be applied now or in the future.
McDonald will apply Heller and change a vast amount of jurisprudence in doing so.
The Constitution does not give us rights. It protects our "god-given" rights as human beings. And the term "privilege" is not exactly the same as when the constitution was written. They weren't referring to our drivers licenses when they put that in there. It was a more generalized term that meant things citizens chose to do being the ultimate authority of their lives as Americans.
Good comment DH.
If 2A doesn't apply to individuals then neither does the other 9 ammendments… Free speech will only apply to our gov represnetatives… etc… This si why we need to FIGHT for our rights! And, actively exercise them.
BTW, the Constitution is not "enforced." The Constitution is a limit on what the government can do. The government has no incentive to "enforce" it any more than a prisoner can be trusted to keep himself in jail. When the government exceeds the Constitution (which it did long ago) it is no longer legitimate and is operating lawlessly. It is due to America's apathy that you are suffering the effects of this. Do you expect to convince a lawless organization to abide by your wishes?
BTW, read the Fourteenth Amendment.
Post the quote homeboy. Oh and you do know that the NRA had ZERO to do with Heller, right?
Majority of people fear the government! Why? Because of Liberty reducing actions of our government (among other reasons)! This hearing is CRITICAL in retaining our rights as individuals. CRITICAL for self defense and CRITICAL to protect ourselves from our government!
Privileges AND immunities. A constitutional immunity is a basic right, like immunity from unreasonable search, immunity from prosecution for speaking freely, etc.
I'd argue that the 2nd amendment does two things, hence the confusing wording. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, but also enumerates the right of state and local communities to organize police forces and state troopers. Without that notion, the federal government could declare that states law enforcement must be done by federal cops.
People argue it doesn't give citizens the right to bear arms because they don't like guns. What makes us think this kind of dishonest thinking is going to stop because a court rules in the favor of it's citizens?
Sotomeyer will vote with the libs because she's a lib.
I'd argue that the 2nd amendment does two things, hence the confusing wording. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, but also enumerates the right of state and local communities to organize police forces and state troopers. Without that notion, the federal government could declare that states law enforcement must be done by federal cops.
People argue it doesn't give citizens the right to bear arms because they don't like guns. What makes us think this kind of dishonest thinking is going to stop because a court rules in the favor of it's citizens?
Sotomeyer will vote with the libs because she's a lib.
License to own a gun
License to travel
License to protest
License to PRAY…………………..
Because "and" didn't apply to black people, or so slavery backers liked to hold, "or" came to pass. The SCOTUS demasculated that "or" in SlaughterHouse. That is about to change.
ANd it is Change I can believe in……even if Obama doesn't.
A good piece but it overlooks the other, uglier side of the coin.
It became increasingly clear, after not too many years had passed, that Slaughterhouse was a wretched decision; but the courts were stuck when it came to applying the Constitutional restraints on government to state governments. (Before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to states. Massachusetts had an Established Church until the 1830's, for example).
Unfortunately, Justice Douglas and the Warren Court found the worst possible answer. In order to apply the plain meaning of Amendment XIV, they didn't take the clean and intellectually correct approach, overturning Slaughterhouse; instead they worked through the back door, avoiding the Privileges and Immunities clause and making illegitimate use of the Due Process clause by inventing the vague and slippery concept of "substantive due process."
Most of the worst activist decisions liberal judges have inflicted on us since have been based on this noxious and unjustifiable concept- the act of judicial ur-activism from which most others have sprung.
I've never held a gun before that didn't shoot water or balls/darts, but laws like this make me want to sign up for safety classes and buy a real one, just to spite liberals. I honestly don't understand how this is even an issue. The Bill of Rights guarantees that owning a gun is legal and lawful in the United States. There are no caveats, that is the law. This ban is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down.
I don't disagree that Soto is hostile to the Second Amendment. However, her confirmation hearing was quite enlightening. The two subjects she was most evasive on were direct 2nd questioning and Stare decisis questioning. Both lines of questioning were directly about this case! Where she comes down on this is a mystery until June.
Though depending on questions she asks, which we will find out soon enough, there might be some hints as to how she will side.
The best way to protect and defend a right is to exercise it.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~~ James Madison, in The Federalist Papers #46
“The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ~~ Samuel Adams
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson, in the first draft of the Virginia Constitution
It didn't apply because SCOTUS said it didn't. Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore.
This would mean that the founders must have intended to replace one all powerful and limitless government (King) with another (state government). HOGWASH.
Read some of your arguments above and am totally impressed,… wish I was as knowledgeable,.. however,…….
my gut feeling is that the political correctness that has permeated into the Supreme Court will win out,.. but ….
I do hope you are right,….the sick can be healed.
Not hogwash at all. Much as we don't like to think about it, the Bill of Rights was appended at the insistence of several states, especially the vital states of Virginia and New York, because the Constitution wouldn't be ratified unless the states had some guarantees that the Federal government's powers would be restrained vis-a-vis the quasi-sovereign States. That's why they used the locution "CONGRESS shall make no law," and included the 10th Amendment, just to be sure. Barron was an accurate and correct decision based on the pre-Civil War Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Or at least it was supposed to, but for Slaughterhouse. Interestingly, the first wave of judicial activism asserting Federal supremacy over state law came from the Right, not the Left: the Lochner era.
Notice that the Second has no "Congress" within. Think about what the Revolutionary war was all about. Individual Liberty. To say the people made such such sacrifice only to replace that which they fought is senseless. The 14th was to change it, it was to settle it. Again the Court was activist even after that, just as it was in Barron.
The position that the people accepted state violation, but not federal violation, of Creator bestowed rights is nonsensical.
"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Court will decide whether the City of Chicago can disarm it citizens by forbidding them from owning handguns…"
I lived in Chicago 3 yrs. I had moved there from FL, where I held a CCP. I left my Ruger P93 9mm elsewhere, because, though it WAS NOT "FORBIDDEN" to own a handgun in Chicago, the process for being able to do so was onerous. (Onerous for law-abiding citizens, that is.)
Meanwhile, at any big celebration like 4th of July or New Years' listen past the fireworks and you will hear celebratory gunshots from the South Side. Criminals are celebrating liberal policies keeping citizens largely un-armed while the criminals carry whatever armament they like and can buy out of a car trunk. (And no, it's not because of an imaginary "gun show loophole".)
The law of averages is working against that political correctness today. I agree it has won out for a very long time, but like everything else, there is no such thing as perfection.
We The People are going to win this, let there be no doubt about that. With the Liberty movement happening today, there is NO WAY that 9 robed ones will say " The Bill of Rights doesn't apply". They know full well what kind of trigger that would be today and they no better than to even put their finger on it, much less pull it.
Ashrak,… you have proven to me today that you are damn intelligent when it come to the correct interpretation of the US Constitution,… but I'm afraid…..
you sure sounded a tad naive about…"the Chicago dominated police state"… but do not get me wrong….
Oh how I wish you were right.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Can you imagine the confiscation of guns in Chicago? Can you believe this is an authentic possbility in the USA?
Dictators always disarm the citizens.
"here seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)
No that wasn't to you T. That was to Big D. I know full well what Heller is all about. McDonald will wade into what is allowable and what isn't.
I know. I just wanted to beat him to the punch.
With you all the way
They'd better bring a damned platoon.
Agreed, yet I also find the 5/4 McDonald victory prediction sad. I wish those in the Supreme Court ALL had enough sense for us to see a 9/0 victory.
They would decline such an order.
What slavery backers? The Fourteenth only came along after slavery was no
more.
The response to the SCOTUS decision in this Second Amendment case by Bobby 'Lightnin' Rush, D-Il, sponsor of HR 45, January 19, 2009, will be a hoot.
Haha, yes, Chicago will be so much safer for those citizens who are living in areas dominated by the Vice-Lords, Gangster Disciples and Latin Kings, etc…Yep, the average citizen will now be able to buy their very own AK-47 and have at it with the armed criminal denizens of America's Second City. I mean, just look at how many times the concealed carry laws in Missouri have resulted in less gun-related homicides in St. Louis City and Kansas City. Oh…wait…there hasn't been a reduction. Dangit, obviously, the armed criminals have not yet caught on to the fact that they're supposed to be scared because everyone can carry a gun! Why aren't they following the script?! Please save us, Saint of the Second Amendment, smite those lowly criminals who could give a rat's a$$ about concealed carry, please!
The 14th came about because states continued what amounted to slavery. When one disallows the rights of another, slavery results.
The 14th was as much a part of Reconstruction as the 13th. In only three years time, do you really believe slavery backers weren't who fought the 14th's adoption? C'mon now.
First if they decide correctly the left will go mad with grief, only criminals should be allowed to have weapons in their twisted worldview, hopefully they won't do a "we gave them one no let's take one to be fair" approach from the man in the middle.
Second is the larger problem; how do you get the court systems to start interpreting the constitution based on what it is, a contract between the fed, states, and us citizens with fairly clearly defined roles and boundaries which are violated more and more. There is plenty of evidence as what "it means" by the original federalist papers etc. yet the "living document" ass'hats constantly ignore that to do as they wish.
What kind of a Constitutional amendment could force them to do that? It sounds a bit out there but the time is coming when the people will do the right thing and demand constitutional reformation, when that happens we should be ready with answers so that "This can never happen again" because you know when Obama looses the Senate and Congressional strangle holds he is going to get even nuttier than he already is.
.
If you think predators don't pick out the weak you know nothing about criminal behavior.
If you think that an armed immediate action of a trained citizen is worthless then put up a sign outside your home (or carboard box) and car (or around your neck if you ride the bus)
"I am not armed, I will not resists, Please respect me as a fellow human"
Idiot
The operative clause in the 12nd Amendment is that the "right of the prople to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is in control.
The prefatory clause about "a well regulated Miklitia being necessary to the security of a free State" does not detract from the operative clause.
A prohibition on an entire class of weapons that Americans choose for the purpose of self-defense is unconsitutional.
He said the minority opinion, I HOPE Clarence is not on THAT side (LOL)
As to Soto taking sides for the correct view; that would be smart if she knew it was going to go against her anyway, it would giver her some cover and Obama some ammo, but I dont; think she is that bright quite honestly.
That last I heard about the interstate thing was that it would probably do down, I wish it were otherwise but they would have to overturn a lot of precedent, not impossible but unlikley.
If it did I would have a parade down mainstree though, the ramifications would probably be far reaching and all for the good.
I dont know how you force judges to have an originalist view, but if you coudl it would be a nice amendment to the Consitution. I imagine the left would literally suicide in droves.
My bad. I sure missed that one.
You should do it for more than just spite, it's a skill that is quite useful when you need it, and will probably give you the tools to make sure you never do (awareness, descalation, and if nessecary use of force continuims, which all the good schools walk/talk you through)
I would not just go for the basic course, get a few hundred hours of training up through leathal comabtives, with some descent disarm/retention classes and maybe a little knife thrown in, lots of places do these kinds of programs these days. Do some research though, a lot of "ninja" level craptacular stuff out their as well.
Insights Training is the one I reccomend having been there done that on a number of levels they are the best I have found out of a dozen or so that I have attended or audited, they train military, acronym op's, and civilians at pretty much all levels.
There is the problem, the "living document" creeps on the bench don't care about original intent or contract law, all they care about is how they can bend it to mean what they want dependent on their masters wishes.
It's a problem that needs to be solved because it's getting worse each year, there is no lack of evidence as to intent, which you have quoted from, their is simply a lack of will to abide by the original intent.
From My Cold Dead Hands………..But not until I've run out of ammo fighting back.
Another little update on the Montana suit:
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/fe...
On a rare occassion, you do have moments of clarity.
Funny Dhassy, when you have moments of clarity, they still give you thumbs down. I don't. You make sense at times.
Folks, I know this is going to be unpopular but I have to disagree with Mr. McDonald on this one. If you study the constitution then you know that it's entire purpose was to place limits on what the FEDERAL government could do to you. In effect congress could not take away your right to free speech, bearing arms, etc.
Each state, as a requirement to entrance into the US, had to have their own constitutions. If Illinois (in this case) wanted to ban handguns, they have the right to do so within their own borders, as long as the state constitution does not limit the state's power in the regard.
Another question I would like to ask is if the federal constitution was supposed to reign supreme over all the states, why did the founders make this a requirement to membership in the union? This was put into place by the founders because they saw the federal government as handling external affairs and the states handling affairs inside their own borders. This has sadly been eroded over the last hundred years or so.
What is so sad in this case is that in the constitution of the state of Illinois, there is a right to bear arms but the Illinois lawmakers have ignored that, and the populace has allowed them to do so. This should have been handled in the supreme court of Illinois and not gone any further.
For those who will call me a gun grabber, I am an NRA member and have been for over 20 years. This application of the 2nd amendment to the states is one thing that I differ from my brethren in the NRA. It has caused some friction in dealing with some folks.
Very true. This is a point that most people either ignore or were never taught. Ignorance only helps those who wish to enslave us.
This ban is going down, and it's long overdue. Poor Chicagoans, you know you're in trouble when your 2nd ammendment rights are in greater jepordy than mine living in a metro area of loony-left California lol.
Before we give each other too many high fives thoush, I think conservatives need to also take on some responsibility and make it known to their representatives in government and the NRA that they are very much in favor of keeping weapons out of the hands of felons. Google West Verginia's "Bloomberg Bill" to see a great example of what NOT to do.
Enforce the constitution (all of it) by being pro-choice.
[...] the original post: » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … Share and [...]
To say the people recognized natural rights, rights that do not come from government, in the Declaration of Independence and then turned 180 degrees away from that and allowed State government to violate them- while at the same time disallowing the federal government from violating them doesn't make sense. It's bogus.
The Bill of Rights was something all agreed to respect, defend and protect. All government was supposed to do so regarding natural rights.
They do not ignore it here in Illinois, they consider the police power to be unlimited. And they exerciseit as such. The Supreme Court of Illinois decides based on SCOTUS – that is why this is a Federal Case. The Second Amendment to the American Constitution doesn't apply here, when the 14th was clearly meant to accomplish exactly that.
Answer me this question please.
Did the folks who waged a war for their freedom in order to declare Independence intend to see that Liberty ceded to an all powerful limitless state government? You will answer YES if what you wrote above is honest. Will you be so bold to do so? We shall see huh?
http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument...
Transcript of today's events.
I hope that you are right, and we really have come that far.
Most correct and a very good quote to remember.
I actually gave him an "up" for that one. Hope the sane side of him takes over in his head.
I teach for free. I figure the best protection is education so I've been known to just give people my time so they could learn. One of my friends decided she wanted to learn so we took her to the range.
Now, she's a CCW holder and we can't keep her off the range at all!
Sotomayor will never be for America's freedom and liberty! That's why she was confirmed, stupid!
Why aren't the the neighborhoods in Chile where citizens have set up neighborhood watches as they postion themselves in their streets in lawn chairs not being looted and other neighborhoods are? Those citizens in the neighborhood watch have a rifle or shotgun, but I still can't figure out why their homes aren't being looted while the other neighborhoods without this variable are. Please help Prog Lib Trolls. I need some of your illogic to help explain this.
[...] » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … [...]
[...] » Chicago Gun Case: Enforce the Constitution–All of It – Big … [...]
I hope that the Supreme Court does it's job; and fear that they won't. I hope they wake up as so many Americans have in the last year. And truly apply the Constitution as written, putting the country back on track.
The constitution lays out rights that no one, the feds or states can take away, and gives some powers to the fed (which is supposed to be restricted to just those powers, which is a joke) and all others that are unenumerated to the states.
The states for instance cannot decide the slavery is legal in NY. So sorry I do study the consitution and I dont follow your reasoning, all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and states cannot remove those rights simply because they dont conceptually like them.
Retard
Not just there but throughout the country. Tennessee already has it, many other "flyover" states introduced similar legislation.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What is it that has -has been caused by it that we have to remedy, meaning States have relied on having no grand juries, States have relied on not having civil trials in certain money cases, they have relied on regulating the use of firearms based on us, the Court, not incorporating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the way that you identify it. What — in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?
MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.
Snappish!
You must be logged in to post a comment.