Chicago/Oak Park submit briefings in McDonald case,

[virginia mountainman]

In their brief, they seem to act like Heller did not happen, or has very little effect... Notice this quote..

The scope of the Second Amendment right—weapons in common use—also reflects its purpose of protecting the militia, rather than an individual right related to self-defense, since the Second Amendment protects weapons regardless of whether they are useful for self-defense.

Interesting how they agree, that it is a "right" BUT.........Someone needs to tell their lawyers, that Heller, decided very differently, than what they are trying to "reach for".

And notice terms in Chicago's brief like "Ordered Liberty" that is used multiple times


http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/08-1521-bs.pdf

IMHO, they will go down in flames......

[sharesunited]

1. You're hoping for the wrong thing.

[rd_kent]

6. You are scared of the right thing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. No he is not

You are on the wrong side of this issue and you continue to doggedly support a distinctly non-progressive view of the role of weapons in a free society.

Private ownership of firearms is a progressive position. Its hard to bash an armed person.

[spin]

11. The first two amendments to the Constitution ...

are possibly the most progressive and liberal ideas ever conceived.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The second guarantees the first.

Imagine trusting the citizens with freedom of religion, free speech, free press and the right to own weapons.

To top it off, it actually worked!

The U.S. Constitution has the oldest written national framework of government in the world. At the end of the 20th century, there were about 159 other national constitutions in the world, and 101 had been adopted since 1970. While the United States has been governed by a single framework of government for over two centuries, France, in contrast, has had 10 separate and distinct constitutional orders (including five republics, two empires, a monarchy, and two dictatorships). The country of El Salvador has had 36 constitutions since 1824.

Nearly all of the national constitutions now in use bear the marks of the 55 men who met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to create the framework of the United States government. Like the U.S. Constitution, they are written constitutions. They also spell out human and civil rights similar to those contained in the U.S. document. A bill of rights is particularly common. The principles of American constitutionalism--the separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, a bicameral legislature, and a presidential form of government--were followed by many nations. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 created a governmental framework that has not only lasted two centuries but has served as a model for freedom-loving people all over the world.

In almost every way imaginable, the United States has been radically transformed over the past two centuries. Its population has soared from just 4 million to nearly 300 million. The federal budget has risen from $4 million in 1790 to over $1 trillion today. Yet the basic framework of government has remained unchanged.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=283

It's fair to argue that we still have work to do, but we can work within the framework of our Constitution to effect change.

[sharesunited]

12. The Second Amendment, as presently misinterpreted, threatens to deprive you of all your other rights

by killing your misguided hide.

[SteveM]

17. The Second Amendment never killed anyone...

The Second Amendment has been properly interpreted, and soon you will learn about incorporation through the 14th. You are becoming so foolish.

[gorfle]

20. The Second Amendment, as presently intepreted, promises to protect all of your other rights.

By giving you the means to resist tyranny.

[sharesunited]

22. Been there, done that. It was called the Civil War. Never again.

[eqfan592]

23. I'm pretty sure this post sucked a couple of IQ points out of my brain.

But I shouldn't blame shares as he was, after all, emboldened by our nations obsession with "random stupid shit forum post" love. ;)

[rd_kent]

26. You are so misguided, friend. I really feel sorry for you.

[gorfle]

29. Oh really?

Are you saying that the American Civil War was an event that guaranteed no future rebellions would ever be necessary or successful?

[GreenStormCloud]

30. In another thread he calls himself a "Revolutionary". LOL. N/T

[jeepnstein]

36. You' ve got to be kidding me.

A revolutionary? "Hey guys. Let's give all our rights to a state if they promise to make our idyllic dreams come true. We can trust their judgment. Freedom is so outdated." Some revolution...

[NightRainFalls]

31. Which civil war did you attend?

Just wondering because it has been quite some time since we had one in this country, so unless you are pretty old, it must have been another one.

[gorfle]

35. Chirp...Chirp...Chirp...

.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You don't think the Civil War was worth it?

Precious few countries have transitioned away from human slavery without bloodshed. Those that have, are usually geographically separated from their slaves.

[rd_kent]

25. "The Second Amendment, as presently misinterpreted" - Hahahaha! What a jokester you are!

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Or protecting all your other rights

by killing some misguided tyrant's hide.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

4. Unlike you..

We came to this game to WIN.....

[MichaelHarris]

5. Did

you come up with the difference yet? Can you tell me why courts treat the two differently? What historical case was also handled differently in DC? Pay attention and you may learn some Constitutional Law. Get back to me the answers, knowledge is power. Did you know you've started two opposing threads? You have one wanting the State of NH to override federal authority and this one wanting federal authority to override a state. Why do you hate America?

[Euromutt]

14. There's no inconsistency

See, federal and state powers are ends unto themselves; they're both means to an end, that end being the protection of individual liberties. And individual liberties is what America is all about.

And while we're well aware that DC is federally administered territory, whereas Chicago is in one of the "several states," that distinction is irrelevant to virginia mountainman's critique of the Chicago/Oak Park brief. The respondents are arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective right" rather than an individual one, over a year after the SCOTUS opined unanimously that the Second does indeed protect an individual right. That particular question has been settled. The question is now whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment means that that individual right is protected not only from infringement by the federal government, but also by state and local governments.

[MichaelHarris]

15. now you do know

if what you said were true that any legal gun owner could walk into any establishment in America and be protected by federal law. That's not really the case now is it? Walk into a high school strapped, where is your 2nd amendment, I could go on. I'm sure you knew that though.

It's nice that you tried though when all the others gave up. See, the states and local municipalities do get to make some rules that pertain to their location. The founding fathers knew that local governments differ as well as the populace, what may be OK in Austin, Tx may not be OK in Chicago. Different cultures and ideas. the states and local governments know their area better than the federal government so they give them leeway. I actual have the quote from the Supreme Court Justice who spoke about this in his opinion from my Con Law notes last year.

Gun people always want it two ways, sometimes they want States rights and sometimes they want Federal rights. If the don't like what a state does they cry for daddy. When the BATF does something they whine about big brother. It's all so predictable.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. You forget that ALL local governments must obey the Constitution.

Therefore, all states and cities gun laws must be constitutional.

[PavePusher]

21. So, it would be acceptable to apply this reasoning...

to the rest of the Constitution as well?

If one jurisdiction wanted to allow slavery, in violation of the 13th Amendment, it would be O.K. with you?

That is one of the many logical conclusions your train of thought leads to....

[eqfan592]

24. Folks like Michael....

...seem utterly incapable of understanding how their rationale could be applied to other constitutionally protected rights besides the 2nd. Not really a shocker, more like the norm.

[Euromutt]

27. Oh, don't be so obtuse

Your first paragraph is a textbook straw man (http://fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html), since I didn't assert the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right, not that that right was absolute. No right is absolute, in that it cannot legitimately be exercised in a manner that is likely to materially harm others. This why it's reasonable to restrict possession of firearms by those deemed likely to misuse them, e.g. convicted felons, those adjudicated to be mentally ill, minors, et al. and to prohibit the discharge of firearms within city limits, for example.

With regard to your second paragraph, I do hope you realize that the argument you make can be--and has been--wielded to argue why state and local governments should be able to adopt laws against abortion, mixed-race marriage, "sodomy," same-sex marriage, and "obscenity," to name a few examples. I can cite you a Supreme Court justice who agrees with your argument, namely Clarence Thomas, who has in at least two cases ((Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow) opined that the Establishment Clause should be held to apply only to the federal government, and not the states. Yes, Thomas thinks the states should be able to impose a state religion. Hey, "different cultures and ideas," right?

And again, neither "states' rights" nor federal authority are ends unto themselves; they are means to an end, the end being the preservation of individual liberties against government encroachment. Whether one appeals to limitations on federal power to impose certain laws on the states, or whether one appeals to the federal constitution to restrict the states' power to impose certain laws on their citizens depends solely on which level of government is doing the encroaching; at the end of the day, you use what tool is appropriate to protect the freedoms of the individual citizen. I suspect you don't have a problem with this tactic when it comes to, say, gay rights.

[eqfan592]

32. Well said, as usual! (nt)

[Euromutt]

33. Correction to the above

The passage:

<...> since I didn't assert the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right, not that that right was absolute.

should read:

<...> since I asserted the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, not that that right was absolute.

[eqfan592]

34. Yeah, I was pretty sure that's what you were getting at. ;) (nt)

[SteveM]

18. Shrillness, demagoguery, distortion. That is the chief weapon of the gun-controllers.

You like to play "bull-in-the-ring," but you get knocked down every time. Is it your hatred of others, or you jealousy at not being able to argue points in a coherent and honest manner? If it were not guns, you would find something else.

[rd_kent]

7. Ugh! The ignorance of the law is astounding in this one.

[MichaelHarris]

8. well

share your knowledge. Will you be posting multiple answers as you look up the information or do you know the answers now? I know them so if you have trouble let me know.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MichaelHarris]

13. hahahahaha

stupidest post of the day. Have you ever taken Constitutional Law Dave? Ask yourself, why did they separate the Brown vs Board of Education case from the same DC cases? You answer that and you may just learn something. I always thought you were smarter than that, guess not. Hint, the states still do get a little sovereignty.

[SteveM]

19. There's that strained mechanical laugh again.

[MichaelHarris]

28. did you

have an answer there? Didn't think so.

[SteveM]

37. Didn't hear a question, except as your usual substitute for an answer(nt)

[X_Digger]

3. Any brief that references Sugarman is crap..

Josh Sugarmann, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns (2001)

Funny quote that I don't think they really read when they included it- "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."