At least 34 states support the 14th Amendment challenge to Chicago's ban

[TPaine7]

Yeah, that's two percentage points under 70%:

Cox Joins NRA in Fight agaisnt Chicago Gun Ban
A.G. Files Amicus Brief Supporting the NRA's Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court

LANSING- Attorney General Mike Cox today announced he has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the National Rifle Association's (NRA) challenge of a City of Chicago ordinance banning possession of most handguns. Cox joined at least 33 other states in supporting the NRA's request for the court to hear an appeal in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, a local case with national implications.

"The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental," said Cox. "The Supreme Court recognized this in the Heller case, and I am confident they will protect this right yet again. No government should impinge on the basic right to defend yourself."

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164--217731--,00.html

Mayor Daly lives in America and despite what he may think he owes allegiance and obedience to the Constitution. Most Americans have no idea how people reason under the gun control reality distortion field. The worldview is incomprehensible to people even remotely attached to America's founding principles--the good ones, the ones that deserve to survive. As I proved in this thread, there are people in high places--Circuit Court judges, even--who believe self-defense itself can be constitutionally outlawed. (They also believe that outlawing self-defense would be a way to defeat the Supreme Court's clear intent in Heller--basically a way to overrule the High Court. I hope the justices take that as a challenge to their authority, and backhand that BS into a remote galaxy.)

I think Daly and his ilk will finally get their comeuppance. It won't approach what they actually deserve for depriving citizens of their rights under color of law, but it will have to do. I'm pulling for a 9-0 ruling, or at least 8-0. It really is crystal clear.

[Deadric Damodred]

1. You, I, and every one else know..

...we aren't getting anything better than a 5-4 decision. The 4 liberals made up their minds long ago that they would vote against anything that would help gun rights. I don't care how crystal clear it is, and neither do they. Thinking it will be a victory better than 5-4 is delusional.

[TPaine7]

2. Maybe so but...

I would like to cling to a shred of my innocence. I would like to believe that some of the anti-gun justices, faced with crushing, overwhelming evidence, will yield to reality. I want to believe that some of them are not absolute pawns of the the gun control reality distortion field.

I may be delusional, but can't you identify, just a little, with my hopeful outlook? I think I'll cling to my delusions until and unless they crumble under the boot of truth.

[Deadric Damodred]

4. I understand it, but I don't identify with it.

I don't see any point in deluding one's self. The anti-gun justices are pawns of the Brady's, Diane Feinstien, Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and all the others to the absolute bitter end. They will never change their minds, and they will always try to twist, turn, and ignore all decisions that go against them. The Heller decision and D.C.'s response shows this with their disgusting "you can only have revolvers" tomfoolery. Of course they eventually got beat down and had to change that, but it shows that they will always always always do whatever they can to shit on law-abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment rights.

The only thing these fucking nuts understand is absolute politcal destruction by us banding together and forcing pro-gun bills to pass, while voting down their anti-gun bills. They can not be reasoned with and they can not be negotiated with, because their idea of a "middle ground", as Paul Helmke said, is "banning all semi-automatic rifles". And we all know that would just be the beginning; there is no bargining, there is no compromise.

[Statistical]

7. Incorporation is a progressive concept.

The 4 liberal justices have voted pro incorporation in the past.

This will be gut check time for them. Hopefully the scope will be defined very narrowly.

Heller is accepted case law. Heller is not being reviewed.

The 2nd guarantees an individual right to own a firearm unconnected in military service and FEDERAL laws that violate that are unconstitutional.

The case scope will be framed. Given Heller is a fact does it apply to the states. Alan Gura is good and will work hard to define the scope as well as possible. To make it black and white.

Given that the case will have ramifications beyond the 2nd. For the liberal justices to vote against it they have to know it could (maybe wont but could) be used in the future to reverse incorporation decision on another amendment.

Is that something they want as a legacy. Maybe 20, 30, 40 years after they retire a landmark civil rights loss which uses this case as precedent.

It is at least something that will give them pause.

However as a betting man I would still put all the chips on 5-4 in favor of plantiff.

[TPaine7]

8. History, is a strong motivator, albeit a selfish one.

I agree that it may influence the justices. After all, who wants to have their opinion ranked with Dred Scott as an example of ideologically driven garbage?

Also, you shouldn't underestimate the "respect my authoritaaaay" angle. It would not shock me if the Heller minority took the "you can't overrule the Supreme Court even if we're wrong" stance. Courts in general--and the Supreme Court in particular--are very jealous of their power. I daresay they are about as jealous of their authority as they should be of our rights.

I am very glad that the Seventh Circuit made their contempt for human rights, the Constitution and the Supreme Court so transparent.

[spag68]

9. Courts and guns

You believe what you want about "liberal" justices, and I will believe that the Conservatives on the court have more then an once of integrity. There is nothing crystal clear about the right to bear arms and there are many who believe that you gun freaks have no balls unless you have your hands on a weapon bigger then your penis, though most of you probably are more like a snub nose 38.

[E-Mag]

10. 9 post and the small penis angle makes it into discusstion

Congratulations at invalidating any point that you might have made!

[TPaine7]

12. Your interest in strange men's penises and balls is noted.

However, a political site is not the appropriate place to pursue it.

[jody]

15. It's interesting that DU allows you to insult pro-RKBA Dems by calling them "gun freaks" but bans a

word that identifies ant-RKBA types who have an "irrational fear of firearms".

Either way, pro-RKBA forces won our battle to recognize the 2nd Amendment protects our natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and we will soon win another battle when SCOTUS says the 2nd is incorporated in the 14th Amendment.

[Katya Mullethov]

16. language

Is it the word using hoplite as its root that is forbidden to utter ?


I am kinda getting into this whole inflammatory linguistics thing . Is hoplosexual already taken ?

[gorfle]

3. I don't know.

All 9 justices agreed that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Deadric Damodred]

5. Yes, but 4 of them...

...also said, and this is summarizing it, "but even though there is an individual right to bear arms, cities can ban guns anyway". They basically want it both ways..."oh yes, yes, you have a right to bear arms.....at least in theory".

[Tim01]

6. Recomended. nt

[TPaine7]

11. California opposes Chicago's ban. *California*

Surprisingly enough, California supports the challenge, though it is careful to speak repeatedly about “guns in the home”, as if that is all that is ultimately at issue—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

California has a strong interest in protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. But unlike many states, California has no state constitutional counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
Source: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/NRA_v._Chicago_Final_Amicus.pdf

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. "Incorporation" is about more than just ther 2nd Amendment. BY taking that approach

it takes it out of just the RKBA arena which is why so many states are backing it.

[jeepnstein]

17. I know we've been down this path before...

but can you school me just a bit on what you mean by this?

[Tim01]

14. Americans are becoming less and less tolerant of gun control.

I actually think the biggest chunk of that change is in the group of people who are democrats or liberals. That is a good thing, a very good thing.

[TPaine7]

18. Michigan Attorney General defends his amicus brief

My support for this challenge to the Chicago gun ban is rooted in Michigan's own Constitution, which states: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

...

The Free Press failed to mention that 34 attorneys general signed on to the NRA's challenge of Chicago's strict gun ban, including both Democrats and Republicans. This isn't about politics; it's about standing up for principle.

...

In my own experience of more than 13 years as a homicide prosecutor and head of the homicide unit of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence, or the lack of same, and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.

Detroit is the county seat of Wayne County. For those who don't know, Detroit is a very tough and dangerous city. Yet Cox never saw a CCW carrier even charged with a murder. I love his closing statement:

I make no apologies for my support of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.


Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20090709/OPINION04/907090384/A+stand+for+principle+on+gun+rights

PS: and before someone makes a big deal out of "freep.com", stop and realize that it stands for "Free Press" as in "The Detroit Free Press." There are already enough people around here who think that the truth of one's statements is dependent on one's political party. Those folks are invited to reread the second paragraph in my quote box above.

[jody]

19. Thanks for the post.

:thumbsup: