there is stuff in the actual ruling needed to understand the result.
My only concern is where do we draw the line. Who decides what is a good law and a bad law. I don't think it's the average citizen...would live in anarchy if that was the case. I think in his case he did the right thing handling it the way he did...after the fact in the court system. I guess someone needs to be the sacrificial lamb but don't condone his original crime. Whether you agree or not a crime is a crime and he broke the law whether just or unjust. You can't break the law and hope the courts will change it just for you...he got lucky.
To your point, if I felt I lived in an area that is hazardous to my health or safety I would try to move. If that wasn't possible, I would probably do what I needed to do if law enforcement was not able to protect me (which is 99.9% of the time) and take my chances.
Thanks for the reply GeorgiaDawg...enjoy the different views.
Welcome, and thank you.
I agree that moving would be the first order of business (if possible). I would never live in an area like that if I had a choice, but if all choice was taken from me, I'd have to do what I'd have to do to survive (within reason).
I'll say that while I wouldn't judge the guy for doing what he did, I also wouldn't say that he didn't deserve the penalty for breaking the law; he got what he deserved according to the law. As you said, the law is the law, and without it there would be anarchy. That's why I'm in favor of obeying all laws (even the silly ones) until they put my life or the lives of my loved ones at risk of life and limb. However, with that disobedience comes the understanding that I will be accountable to the law if the times comes to pay the piper. It's a risk one way or the other.
don't you just love a city that has no control over their elected officials
So, I think that having a misdemeanor, especially non-violent, should not preclude you from carrying a gun. Add to that, that it was a Chicago gun law that he violated (which may or may not), and while their entire penal code for guns was not struck down, as a whole, it was judged by the SCOTUS to be too restrictive.
The sad thing is that the city will probably appeal, and waste a whole lot more money on lawyers, that they should be spending on police and services.
But just the title of this thread makes me happy. Slap Obama's stooge around a little more. I wonder if Daley felt it too? They are probably both pouting right now.
You forget....the system fights the system by popular demand......thing is...when the system fights the system it's at the taxpayers expense...........why wouldn't they make time before the court to burn your money for no good reason? Think about it for just a minute. Then think about paddling the boat upstream and getting nowhere at the same time.
Here is part of the judge's reasoning:I am normally a very law-abiding citizen, but just because something is "legal" does not by definition also make it "Moral." Slavery of Black people was "legal"; Genocide of 6 million Jews (and bunches of others) was legal under Hitler; Then there was Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. Remember the phrase "Taxation without representation"? Our Founding Fathers broke the laws they felt were unjust and immoral. They were also prepared to pay the price as well for their civil disobediance to the King.Quote:
"There is something incongruent about a nonviolent person, who is not a felon but who is convicted of a misdemeanor offense of simple possession of a firearm, being forever barred from exercising his constitutional right to defend himself in his own home in Chicago against felons or violent criminals," Der-Yeghiayan wrote.
"The same Constitution that protects people's right to bear arms prohibits this type of indiscriminate and arbitrary governmental regulation," he continued. "It is the opinion of this court that any attempt to dilute or restrict a core constitutional right with justifications that do not have a basis in history and tradition is inherently suspect."
Now, whether the guy in this lawsuit had the weapon on moral grounds or not, I can't say, but just saying, that before we all get too worked up about his original crime, it might be well to at least philosophically admit the distinction between legal and moral........
was a non-violent misdemeanor. OTOH, I'm still uncomfortable with anyone who knowingly and deliberately
breaks a law with respect to weapons possession. I don't care if that's going to NYC armed or
keeping a rifle in your house without a permit. Weapons laws --though often misguided-- are intended
to help keep violence down, and those who would deliberately choose to break them are in my mind
a little closer to the edge of violence than I would want them to be. Its not quite the same as getting a misdemeanor
conviction for remodeling your basement without a building permit.
I must draw your attention to the fact that we do indeed have the right and power of deciding what is a good or bad law. Aside from elected representatives, we have the power of Jury Nullification which is too often ignored by jurors. Simply put, no matter what the law says, if the jury thinks otherwise they have the power to acquit, evidence not withstanding.
Also, We should never follow laws blindly just because they are laws. They must always be morally justifiable. To do otherwise plays into the hands of those who would bend the law to their own purposes. I refer you to post #23.
Yeah. The possession of a handgun is something relatively new. You are allowed to own but with a permit and kept in the home listed on the permit only. There is question as to whether or not you can even walk on the front porch with it. perfect example of Chicago can manipulate rulings.
My family member is CPD and is very familiar with the department that authorizes these permits. It's a joke to say the least. As stated above laws like this are only as good as the system administrating the process. Again, it's a joke.
I'm sorry but comparing Hitler and the killing of Jews and a law regarding gun ownership is ridiculous. I'm shocked that was even used as an example.