How A Civil Rights Hero Can Turn The Tables On Gun Grabbers And End An Era

How A Civil Rights Hero Can Turn The Tables On Gun Grabbers And End An Era

This is a discussion on How A Civil Rights Hero Can Turn The Tables On Gun Grabbers And End An Era within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Otis McDonald fought the City of Chicago all the way to the Supreme Court and won the right to keep a handgun in his home. ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Econ101
  • 1 Post By mcp1810
  • 1 Post By Econ101
  • 3 Post By Hoganbeg
  • 1 Post By mcp1810

Thread: How A Civil Rights Hero Can Turn The Tables On Gun Grabbers And End An Era

  1. #1
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24

    How A Civil Rights Hero Can Turn The Tables On Gun Grabbers And End An Era

    Otis McDonald fought the City of Chicago all the way to the Supreme Court and won the right to keep a handgun in his home. In other words, he established the right of an individual to conceal a handgun in a gun-free zone. This landmark decision has arguably transformed the concept of gun-free zones from a public policy issue to a civil rights issue. It's the foundation of a strategy to abolish gun-free zones as we know them:

    https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...g-problem.html

    I believe Otis McDonald deserves a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom. There would be no better time for the award ceremony than during the nationally televised address described in step five. If his victory were to be cited as the key to solving the mass shooting problem, it would be a game changer. The expressions on the faces in the mainstream media would be like nothing we've seen since the 2016 election.
    Last edited by Econ101; December 3rd, 2019 at 02:53 PM.
    M1911A1 likes this.

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,726
    McDonald v Chicago had nothing to do with gun free zones. It was entirely about the right to own a handgun and possess it inside ones own home. In other words, the court ruled that the person in control of private property gets to determine what kinds of weapons are allowed (if any) on their property, not the government.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  3. #3
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24
    Otis McDonald has already been recognized as an NRA hero:

    https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/a...liberty-award/

    Millions of otherwise intelligent people have been brainwashed by the mainstream media to believe that Republicans are racists and the NRA is a terrorist organization. If nothing else, a Medal of Freedom awarded by President Trump would be worth it just to explode those myths and enhance his chances for reelection.

    With the regard to what the Supreme Court would do, nobody really knows. This is just the quickest way to force them to consider whether gun-free zones without impenetrable armed security should be legal at all. I can't imagine a greater civil rights violation than being trapped and murdered because a law interfered with the natural right of self defense. Nobody could predict all the consequences when Oliver Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. But, he and Otis McDonald both got landmark decisions. It's a national security imperative for the President and his legal team to force the issue with this one.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,726
    Have you ever actually read the majority opinion from Heller v D.C?

    Although we do not undertake an
    exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
    Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
    taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
    possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
    laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings,
    or laws impos-
    ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    Pretty plain language there.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #5
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24
    Plessy v. Ferguson had some pretty plain language, too. But, it couldn't stand up against Brown v. Board of Education. People have been getting slaughtered for decades and Congress can't or won't fix it. My strategies, if implemented, will at the very least expose the liars and morons in the mainstream media. And without costing anything, they just might

    1) Save lives and prevent catastrophic injuries and psychological trauma.
    2) Save time by eliminating the need for active shooter drills.
    3) Save money by eliminating the need for armed guards (primary targets) and structural upgrades.
    4) Stop scaring the crap out of school children.
    5) Protect the rights of legal gun owners.
    6) Answer a question that should be asked on any issue: what would Thomas Sowell do?

    What alternative could possibly be implemented in time to prevent another Beslan or Orlando massacre?
    M1911A1 likes this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    3,993
    Well, gun-free zones do need to be re-considered but Congress cannot fix the problem of slaughter because it isn't a problem of law, it is a problem of moral dissolution in our society. The best government can do is get out of the way. The lies of the media are a problem but, again, not correctable with legislation. The solution is for a greater number of people to think for themselves rather than just accept what they are told. Toward that end we need to educate our kids rather than brainwash and indoctrinate them.

    Thomas Sowell is definitly on the list of those who are worth listening to.
    "...as politics in Washington and elsewhere grows increasingly un-moored from reality, humanist wisdom provides us with one final consolation: There is no greater lesson from the past than the intractability of human folly." Heather Mac Donald

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Econ101 View Post
    Plessy v. Ferguson had some pretty plain language, too. But, it couldn't stand up against Brown v. Board of Education. People have been getting slaughtered for decades and Congress can't or won't fix it. My strategies, if implemented, will at the very least expose the liars and morons in the mainstream media. And without costing anything, they just might

    1) Save lives and prevent catastrophic injuries and psychological trauma.
    2) Save time by eliminating the need for active shooter drills.
    3) Save money by eliminating the need for armed guards (primary targets) and structural upgrades.
    4) Stop scaring the crap out of school children.
    5) Protect the rights of legal gun owners.
    6) Answer a question that should be asked on any issue: what would Thomas Sowell do?

    What alternative could possibly be implemented in time to prevent another Beslan or Orlando massacre?
    Solving society's problems is not the job of the courts. That is for the legislature and executive branches to do. The court's job is to ensure that those solutions do not violate our rights and to settle disputes under law.

    Brown and Plessy were separated by almost sixty years. Seven of the nine justices from Heller are still on the bench.
    From McDonald v Chicago,
    It is important to
    keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right
    to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___
    (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-
    ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
    measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
    (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.

    Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations,
    incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
    Gun free zones are not going away. And as President Trump seems to be favoring "originalist" judges for nomination don't expect to see any judicial activism in the next twenty years at least.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #8
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24
    The President is being impeached for delaying military aid that Ukraine needed to defend itself. This begs the question: what should happen to Bill Clinton and Congress for interfering with our right to defend ourselves and our children in "gun free" school zones?

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Econ101 View Post
    The President is being impeached for delaying military aid that Ukraine needed to defend itself. This begs the question: what should happen to Bill Clinton and Congress for interfering with our right to defend ourselves and our children in "gun free" school zones?
    They should get voted out of office.
    That is the remedy provided by the Constitution isn't it?
    The original gun free school zones act was found to be constitutionally deficient in very specific ways. The revisions made addressed those issues specified by the court. Just because we don't like a law does not make it unconstitutional.

    Your state can basically nullify the federal school zone act. The law specifically exempts those that have a state issued permit so long as the application process includes a background check.
    M1911A1 likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #10
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    They should get voted out of office.
    That is the remedy provided by the Constitution isn't it?
    The original gun free school zones act was found to be constitutionally deficient in very specific ways. The revisions made addressed those issues specified by the court. Just because we don't like a law does not make it unconstitutional.

    Your state can basically nullify the federal school zone act. The law specifically exempts those that have a state issued permit so long as the application process includes a background check.
    I get it. So, state laws interfering with an actual Constitutional right are okay. But, if they interfere with an inferred right, like abortion, that's not okay. Seems like all the more reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,726
    You are apparently operating under a common misconception. Until McDonald the Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with state laws. State laws were governed solely by the individual state's Constitution.
    From McDonald,
    The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment,
    originally applied only to the Federal Government. In Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243
    (1833), the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, explained that this question was “of great importance” but “not of much difficulty.” Id., at 247. In less than four
    pages, the Court firmly rejected the proposition that the first eight Amendments operate as limitations on the States, holding that they apply only to the Federal Government. See also Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet.
    469, 551–552 (1833) (“[I]t is now settled that those amend-
    ments [in the Bill of Rights] do not extend to the states”).
    The constitutional Amendments adopted in the after-
    math of the Civil War fundamentally altered our country’s
    federal system. The provision at issue in this case, 1 of
    the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other
    things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or
    immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive
    “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
    What the framers prohibited with the Second Amendment was interference by the federal government only.
    Some states have right to arms in their Constitutions, some don't. State laws were (and are still) controlled by that state's Constitution.

    D.C. not being a state is governed by federal (plus limited home rule) laws. That is why the Second Amendment was in any way relevant to the case. If Heller was in Maryland it never would have happened. Maryland has no equivalent in it's Constitution. A Maryland law would have been judged based on the Maryland Constitution and found to be constitutional as there was no federally recognized individual right to arms.

    In Heller Scalia said that the Right is not unlimited and the court was not defining its limits there, as did Alito in McDonald. They both said nothing should be taken to cast doubt on certain prohibitions including schools and government buildings. What McDonald does is require states to recognize the same individual right to possess a handgun inside your own home the federal government now recognizes.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #12
    Member Array Econ101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Well, gun-free zones do need to be re-considered but Congress cannot fix the problem of slaughter because it isn't a problem of law, it is a problem of moral dissolution in our society. The best government can do is get out of the way. The lies of the media are a problem but, again, not correctable with legislation. The solution is for a greater number of people to think for themselves rather than just accept what they are told. Toward that end we need to educate our kids rather than brainwash and indoctrinate them.

    Thomas Sowell is definitly on the list of those who are worth listening to.
    I signed a petition last year asking Congress to reconsider the Gun Free School Zones Act. It went nowhere for reasons stated in step 3 at the link. Premeditated murder on any scale involves motive, means and opportunity. The only factor that can be dealt with in a timely manner is opportunity, and there's no better way at this time than forcing the issue by triggering an injunction with an executive order.

Sponsored 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
  •