McDonald et al v City of Chicago [merged]

This is a discussion on McDonald et al v City of Chicago [merged] within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A nice analysis of the forthcoming case to be heard March 2 can be found here: SCOTUSblog Second Amendment drama: Act II...

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: McDonald et al v City of Chicago [merged]

  1. #1
    Member Array ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    191

    McDonald et al v City of Chicago [merged]

    A nice analysis of the forthcoming case to be heard March 2 can be found here:
    SCOTUSblog Second Amendment drama: Act II

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array PastorPack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,572
    Wow, that was very thorough. It will be an interesting couple of months waiting to see the the Court's decision on this.
    God is love (1 John 4:8)

  4. #3
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68

    What if......

    SCOTUS does NOT rule that the 2nd applies as against the individual States? Will there be an exodus from such cities as Chicago? From such states as Illinois and/or Wisconsin? U.S. v. Cruikshank would seem to be a "problem".....'......The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution......' Regardless of the outcome/ruling, it will be interesing, to say the least
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

  5. #4
    Member Array kansastom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SW Kansas
    Posts
    68
    After re-reading this portion from Cruikshank, it would seem that the statement 'This is not a right granted by the Constitution' (the RKBA) is, technically correct. The RKBA predates the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution (2A) Protects the Pre-Existing Right. So, there is no "problem" with Cruikshank.
    "Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."
    NRA Member
    SIG SAUER P220 Elite Stainless & P238
    Glock 23
    S&W 431PD

  6. #5
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,549
    Interesting read, long but thorough...we'll know how the Supreme Court thinks shortly.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Pro2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    SCOTUS does NOT rule that the 2nd applies as against the individual States? Will there be an exodus from such cities as Chicago? From such states as Illinois and/or Wisconsin? U.S. v. Cruikshank would seem to be a "problem".....'......The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution......' Regardless of the outcome/ruling, it will be interesing, to say the least
    Don't forget that most states have their own versions of the 2A in their respective constitutions. If it's ruled otherwise on the federal level, we can still fight it on a state level as more states then not are pro-2A.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by kansastom View Post
    After re-reading this portion from Cruikshank, it would seem that the statement 'This is not a right granted by the Constitution' (the RKBA) is, technically correct. The RKBA predates the Constitution, and therefore the Constitution (2A) Protects the Pre-Existing Right. So, there is no "problem" with Cruikshank.
    Yes, that part is correct. Where they went wrong was Slaughterhouse, decided 3 years earlier. It said only rights created by the Federal Government were protected by the P or I clause of the 14th Amendment(right to navigable waterways, diplomatic protection abroad,exc.). Cruikshank simply followed Slaughterhouse's precedent.

    Heller's footnote 23 mentions Cruikshank also said the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states...........
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    Don't forget that most states have their own versions of the 2A in their respective constitutions. If it's ruled otherwise on the federal level, we can still fight it on a state level as more states then not are pro-2A.
    I believe the Supreme Ct. will rule in our favor,
    BUT if not, then they, (the federal government) will finally see, the dissention among the (States) people; and I fear they will ultimately feel their unpopularity looming ever closer than they ever could imagine

    On a somewhat of a side note, have you seen the Canadian Government is beginning to backpedal on their national gun registration scheme. this may finally show that the anti gun movement is fast losing favorability in the world

    Here is a link to this story, which indicates they will vote on if they will get rid of the registry and all the records

    Free vote on gun law - Winnipeg Free Press

    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  10. #9
    Member Array bruce21b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lexington Ky
    Posts
    346

    Supreme Court to scrutinize gun laws...this could be EPIC..

    for our brothers/sisters in places like Chicago that have been stripped of their rights to defend themselves:

    Supreme Court to scrutinize state, local gun laws - KansasCity.com

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. McDonald vs Chicago
    By joecs1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 25th, 2010, 05:56 PM
  2. Gura's reply brief in McDonald v City of Chicago filed
    By ming in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 29th, 2010, 04:33 PM
  3. McDonald et. al. v City of Chicago
    By ming in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 01:09 PM
  4. ? on McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By ming in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 01:46 PM
  5. Chicago files brief in McDonald v City of Chicago
    By ming in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 1st, 2010, 05:54 PM