Go, judge! Now, it's time to lift the ban on assault weapons
over there. "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
B. Obama and Joe Biden going to go nuts and fuming - "how can it be?"
Now I can no longer worry about getting weapon for my protection. Thank you!
Of course the Chicago ordinances are unconstitutional. Trying to
"reinterpret" the Constitution to say it doesn’t apply anymore is
nonsense and sets a dangerous precedence for a society founded upon the rule
law. Gun control advocates who want reasonable gun laws should seek to change
the Constitution, not obfuscate it with clearly unconstitutional ordinances.
Where's all the outrage about "activist judges" overriding the will
of the people?
Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the country. Any
Maybe the judges like to toss laws back and forth just so.they have a job. We
the people should judge.
I"ll believe that a shortage of guns has ADDED to gun violence in Chicago,
as implied by O 10, when the number of guns rises and violence DECLINES. When
should we expect that to happen?
Hope for America! Maybe the crime rate will drop off when people can properly
defend themselves now. Any cretans trying a home invasion deserve some of their
Change, "let them eat cake" to "let them have nukes" and lets
get on with the all out anarchy!
@1.96 Standard DeviationsHow is selling guns to private citizens
commensurate with the constitutional mandate to maintain a well-regulated
militia? Is every gun-toting private citizen part of the well-regulated
militia? Where are your barracks? When do you train? Do you get uniforms?Seems like our well-regulated militia (aka the armed forces) has access
to the guns they need, as required by the constitution. Interestingly, that
same constitution makes no reference to people who are NOT part of the
well-regulated militia owning guns. So where do you get the idea that private
citizens should be able to own guns? News flash: It's not in the
Ok then. Here is the precident for staying a decision. Shelby should have done
the same thing this his homosexual marriage decision. This federal judge in
Chicago at least knows how the law should work and he is giving time for the
opponents of his decision to appeal. As it should be. Shelby could and should
learn from this, but he won't.
OHBU, at least this "activist judge" as you call it followed the
Constitution. See my previous post for the point.
Interesting that Chicago has some of the toughest anti gin laws in the U.S. and
still has the highest homicide rate. Can we conclude that tough gun laws
don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
also of note is the judge did not over rule a set of rules voted on by the
people. These restrictions were placed by the governmental administration.
Brave Sir Robin:What part of "the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? That is about
as plain of language as you can get. The founders of our country were not trying
to make this complicated. The right belongs to the people. The militia (which is
made up of people) is regulated, yes, but the right to bear arms is for you and
me. P.S. The 2nd amendment mentions nothing of the need for a
barracks, training, or the need for uniforms. The right to bear arms is
@Obama10"Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the
country."@peacemaker"Interesting that Chicago has some of
the toughest anti gin laws in the U.S. and still has the highest homicide rate.
Can we conclude that tough gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of
criminals?"Chicago does not have the highest murder rate in the
country and their rates dropped significantly this past year.
Flashback,There is nothing in the Constitution that states a judge
shall stay their opinion pending appeal. People who are convicted of crimes and
intend to appeal aren't allowed to roam free. The decision is made on a
case-by-case basis.jsf: whether elected officials or direct vote are
used, both are done according to the "will of the people." That's
how a democratic republic works--some decisions are done directly, others
through popularly elected officials. Both are considered the will of the
people, especially in a place like Chicago (or Utah) where those same officials
can expect broad support come the next election.
"Is every gun-toting private citizen part of the well-regulated
militia?"No, but the Constitution allows the opportunity for a
private citizen to be part of a well-regulated militia, but recognizes that a
citizen can’t without the ability to own, possess, or carry a firearm in
the first place. The Supreme Court addressed and answered this
Constitutional question for you. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the
Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision expressly holding that this
particular clause protects the individual right to possess and carry firearms.
Brave Sir RobinThe only problem with your reasoning is that the U.S.
constitution allowed for the formation of armies. The right to keep and bare
arms is in the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the constitution.
Those were all for giving people power over government, not for giving
government power over the people, which much of the constition does in its main
articles. atl134Everywhere I look it says Chicago is
the highest murder rate. So what's your source?
Obama10 said: "Strictest gun laws with the highest murder rate in the
country. Any correlation??"Casual at best, which is all that is
needed for gun nuts to justify their obsessionIt is important to
understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had
strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer
— enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they
purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement
in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the
state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining
fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most
significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of
which are known for their strict gun laws.Kinda like UT handing out
CCP to anyone who's check clears in the USASorry your spin
doesn't make it so.
"Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were
originally purchased in other parts of Illinois...fifty seven percent of Chicago
guns all came from out of state"Precisely why many local and
state gun control laws simply don't work--they certainly don't reduce
gun violence and claiming they do is not supported by the facts and is nothing
more than political grandstanding at its best. The only
constitutionally legitimate method to expropriate an armed citizenry in America
is to amend the Constitution and remove the right to keep and bear arms.
Anti-gun advocates know that amending the Constitution is a difficult
task--that's why they choose a back-door approach through local anti-gun
ordinances which the Supreme Court has said violates the constitutional rule of
Happy Valley HereticSo by your reasoning, the only way for any state
or city to get control of gun violence is for the entire United States of
America to ban guns althgether. Well good luck with that!Also, it could be argued that if gun sales were banned in the U.S. altogether,
you would only be opening a very lucrative illegal arms market to fill the gap.
Therefore, the border security, which would also stop illegals from coming into
the country, would really have to work. Would that be good with you?
@ Brave Sir Robin"So where do you get the idea that private
citizens should be able to own guns?"The government could easily take
away the rest of our rights if the Second Amendment wasn't in place and the
citizens didn't own guns.