Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-24-2009, 07:57   #21
Edge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff S. View Post
Any update?
Sorry for not providing one earlier. He gave a great presentation, answered questions until there weren't any more, and got a standing ovation if memory serves. He posts updates on his chicago gun case website which is referenced earlier. It was worth the fairly long drive to Springfield just to hear him.
Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2009, 14:03   #22
Eagle22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 597
Quote:
Decision

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."[31] This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.[32]
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:
  • that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
  • that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
  • that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
  • that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not 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 imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In a footnote following this paragraph, Justice Scalia stated that this list is not exhaustive.
Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller


some important notations:

1. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,'

2. "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;'

3. the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".
__________________


NC Glockers #139

Last edited by Eagle22; 04-06-2009 at 14:06..
Eagle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 21:01   #23
Jeff S.
Carson Valley
 
Jeff S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 3,292
From www.chicagoguncase.com:

By Alan Gura

"As the case ramps up, and we have more information to share, this site will become a bit more active.

On Monday, we’re going to be filing the opening brief on the merits before the Supreme Court. Check in around mid-day if you’re interested.

Also on Monday, we expect to see filed (and of course, we’ll post here) the NRA’s “Respondents’ Brief.” If this sounds strange to you, you’re right: it is an unusual set of circumstances, but one dictated by the Court’s rules.

In the lower courts, NRA and affiliated individuals filed several companion cases against Chicago and its gun-banning suburbs. The other defendants folded, but Chicago and the Village of Oak Park soldiered on. The three cases – ours (McDonald), NRA v. Chicago, and NRA v. Oak Park – were considered together in the Court of Appeals. Under the Supreme Court’s rules,

“All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in this Court . . . All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing documents.” Rule 12.6.

So NRA is a “Respondent in Support of Petitioners,” and Oak Park is a Respondent. The practical consequence is that NRA’s brief needs a red Respondent’s cover instead of a green Amicus one, their brief is due the same date as ours instead of a week later, and their word limit goes from 9,000 to 15,000.

We’re informed Oak Park will not be filing a separate brief, but will be joining Chicago’s efforts."




The briefs will be out Monday and I'll post them here.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Jeff S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 19:02   #24
Jeff S.
Carson Valley
 
Jeff S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 3,292
There has been more updates from Gura at Chicagoguncase.com.


Also, a very interesting article from http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/0...slaughterhouse, about the upcoming McDonald v Chicago. It explains the methods used by Gura to try and incorporate the Second Amendment against the States.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Jeff S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2010, 13:32   #25
Jeff S.
Carson Valley
 
Jeff S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bozeman, MT
Posts: 3,292
Alan Gura's reply brief is now posted at Chicagoguncase.com
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Jeff S. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 13:04   #26
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 16,020
No matter how some folks may try to spin this, Heller is a HUGE win for the gun owners. This country went through over 200 years without having such a huge victory in support of the Second Amendment, and now we have dozens of eggheads trying to down-play it. Like it or not, this country now has confirmed Constitutional authority for most of its adult citizens to be armed with firearms. As long as I do not commit certain crimes, I shall be allowed to possess my G17 or most other firearms. This is LONG overdue!
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions

Last edited by SCmasterblaster; 05-08-2010 at 13:05..
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 08:07   #27
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster View Post
No matter how some folks may try to spin this, Heller is a HUGE win for the gun owners. This country went through over 200 years without having such a huge victory in support of the Second Amendment, and now we have dozens of eggheads trying to down-play it. Like it or not, this country now has confirmed Constitutional authority for most of its adult citizens to be armed with firearms. As long as I do not commit certain crimes, I shall be allowed to possess my G17 or most other firearms. This is LONG overdue!
You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)
__________________
Rocket Scientist
unit1069 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 08:55   #28
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)
The only candidate I've seen who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is Ron Paul.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 12:02   #29
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 16,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by unit1069 View Post
You're correct, but only up to a point.

The real danger to individual Second Amendment rights is still as virulent as ever, given the Left's control of the so-called mainstream media.

Pres. Barack Obama --- should he be re-elected --- will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint an ideological clone of Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Breyer, if anyone's read his words concerning the Second Amendment, has absolutely no regard for the words of the Founding Fathers nor for legal precedent. Breyer is a thoroughly indoctrinated Leftist who believes the US Constitution means whatever he says it does.

A Breyer clone for nomination is almost a certain guarantee, after watching the president nominate Sotomayor and Kagan to the Court. A Leftist majority on the Court will prompt the Brady Campaign and Washington DC to reintroduce their anti-rights jihad, leading to a 5 - 4 decision striking down Heller.

This is the immediate danger America faces; it's up to everyone to go to the polls on election day 2012 to ensure that whoever is president in 2013 is someone who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as well as the US Constitution.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." (John Philpot Curran, 1790)
Let us then hope to God that this country does not re-elect BHO!
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2014, 17:50   #30
ICARRY2
NRA Life Member
 
ICARRY2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,761
Tagged
ICARRY2 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:45.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,111
331 Members
780 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31