410 replies to this topic

[oneshot]

hodgie, on Jun 26 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

i am watching CLTV and they have an attorney named walter maksyn on the phone who is in the process right now of filing a suit against the city of chicago.

[Slappy]

oneshot, on Jun 26 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

hodgie, on Jun 26 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

i am watching CLTV and they have an attorney named walter maksyn on the phone who is in the process right now of filing a suit against the city of chicago.

I'm as giddy as a school girl....

[johnyt101]

""Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." That might give us the right to open carry in a future case seeing as concealed carry was often seen as taboo...I think this decision could strike down the 86 MG ban and the $200 tax. The court ruled against poll taxes for voting as an undue burden on the right to vote, so how is a special tax on a firearm not an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms? Also if the amendment protects firearms in common use, if someone makes the argument that MGs aren't in common use because of the ban, and they probably would be if there was no ban...we know Alito is in favor of overturing the MG ban from a dissenting decision he made on the appellate court. Registration was directly addressed here so it will be another battle, and so is the permit for carrying in the home. I dont see how that could survive under a 4th amendment review."

adding to what I said before, a Chicago case would incorporate the 2nd amendment plus perhaps all of the antis would finally realize they lost and go home...but that last statement was just wishful thinking...

[Molly B.]

Not seeing much on CNN or on their scroll about the Heller ruling - spent 15min or so talking to a nice little ol' lady about throwing out a baseball at big league game.

[Ashdump]

Not to pee on the parade, but this ain't over. It was a good but not great ruling. So we have an individual right. Fine we all knew that. Need I remind anyone that any relief in illannoy could be years, or even a decade or more away? Also, we all know that with the 5-4 decision, next time we will most likely have a liberal majority SC hostile towards the 2A. I am sick of this crap. The 2A is crystal clear. I don't know why they did'nt just get the stupid incorporation thing over with.

[johnyt101]

That is why love him or hate him, we need McCain to win just for the fact that he would appoint justices that are friendly to the 2A. Also, Bush 43 and Regan appointed a lot of judges on the district and appeals courts that are friendly to the 2A, so lower courts might be on our side now. Being that the court just ruled it an individual right, even if a liberal majority did take over, they might not immediately overturn it because it was just settled law. But it is still essential that we elect someone who will appoint good guy judges...

[flagtag]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

""Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." That might give us the right to open carry in a future case seeing as concealed carry was often seen as taboo...I think this decision could strike down the 86 MG ban and the $200 tax. The court ruled against poll taxes for voting as an undue burden on the right to vote, so how is a special tax on a firearm not an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms? Also if the amendment protects firearms in common use, if someone makes the argument that MGs aren't in common use because of the ban, and they probably would be if there was no ban...we know Alito is in favor of overturing the MG ban from a dissenting decision he made on the appellate court. Registration was directly addressed here so it will be another battle, and so is the permit for carrying in the home. I dont see how that could survive under a 4th amendment review."

adding to what I said before, a Chicago case would incorporate the 2nd amendment plus perhaps all of the antis would finally realize they lost and go home...but that last statement was just wishful thinking...

Wishful thinking is right.  But maybe not for much longer?  D.C. mayor was on tv stating the the handguns would have to be registered and "the doesn't mean that they can be carried outside the home"  (jerk!) But the NRA, et al, haven't even gotten started yet!           

[gravyboy77]

Ashdump, on Jun 26 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

Not to pee on the parade, but this ain't over. It was a good but not great ruling. So we have an individual right. Fine we all knew that. Need I remind anyone that any relief in illannoy could be years, or even a decade or more away? Also, we all know that with the 5-4 decision, next time we will most likely have a liberal majority SC hostile towards the 2A. I am sick of this crap. The 2A is crystal clear. I don't know why they did'nt just get the stupid incorporation thing over with.

Well acording to the Scotus Blog, the justices said the they didn't want to address incorporation at this point in time, but could be ruled on in at another time......Hint hint!

From the Scotus Blog:

Quote

My Sense of the Bottom-Line from Heller (updated at 11:30)
Thursday, June 26th, 2008 11:30 am | Tom Goldstein |
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense.  The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill.  And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.  The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

D.C.’s laws are invalidated.  The handgun ban is unconstitutional.  The Court treats the District’s trigger lock requirement as categorical and not including a self-defense exception.  It does not address whether the trigger lock rule would be constitutional if it had such an exception, though it suggests it would by referring to the right to have a “lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is.  So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.

[abolt243]

We may find out about the Chicago aspect soon.  I predict that a Chicago lawsuit will be filed today!!!!

AB

[Chris]

abolt243, on Jun 26 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

We may find out about the Chicago aspect soon.  I predict that a Chicago lawsuit will be filed today!!!!

AB

It's already been done.

[gravyboy77]

Big Chris, on Jun 26 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

abolt243, on Jun 26 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

We may find out about the Chicago aspect soon.  I predict that a Chicago lawsuit will be filed today!!!!

AB

It's already been done.

Like 5 and counting!

[johnyt101]

Question, if in the courts opinion on page 11, they recognize the right to bear arms is an individual right not connected with militia service, then why did they not also strike down DCs ban on carrying weapons outside of the home? Was it because they didn't want to go any further than they had to?

[Slappy]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Question, if in the courts opinion on page 11, they recognize the right to bear arms is an individual right not connected with militia service, then why did they not also strike down DCs ban on carrying weapons outside of the home? Was it because they didn't want to go any further than they had to?

is CCW legal in DC? if it is, then they effectively did that with this ruling...

right to bear arms does not equal right to ccw... though it should...

[johnyt101]

CCW is a privilege granted to only the connected in DC. The DC mayor just said on TV that this ruling did not effect carrying guns outside of the home(that is still banned). The ruling clearly recognized the right to carry arms for self defesne but the key is did the court order DC to stop enforcing that ban...I dont think they did. Also Scalia said restrictions on Concealed carry might be acceptable, making me believe bearing arms = openly carrying them. So this will give us ammo in future cases, im just wondering why they did not order DC to stop enforcing the law or change the law on carrying arms outside of the home NOW since in the ruling they said that was an individual right. I gues well have to wait for that to be challenged also.

[johnyt101]

Pages 56 and 57 are interesting...Scalia writes that Miller set the standard that the 2A protects firearms that are fit for military use and are in common use. So Scalia believes that it would have to be argued (presumably in a future case) if the ban on MGs like the M16 is constitutional because they are fit for military use but not in common use. I say to that, it can be argued that the M16 is not in common use because of the ban and if there were no ban it would be in common use...look at the number of people who own AR-15s which is essentially the same thing! That fact alone proves that the M16 would be in common use if there was no ban. How could something be in common use if the government wont allow you to use it? On page 57 of his opinion, Scalia writes that the Georgia and Tennessee Supreme courts struck down bans on openly carrying arms in public because it was in violation of their state constitutions which were modeled after the 2A! He does note that the GA supreme court did uphold the ban on carrying concealed weapons...he hinted earlier at that. So if the court ruled that carrying arms for self defense is an individual right (pg 11), and Scalia believes banning concealed carry is a reasonable restriction, and he relied heavily on state courts/constitutions to come to his decision, I can see the court later ruling that there is a right to open carry a firearm in a peaceable manner (even in Illinois). Imagine one day we will be able to walk down Michigan Ave. with our pistols in plain sight proudly proclaiming to the criminals (king daley too) that we will not be victims!

[Ol'Coach]

Just had a call from WICD Ch 15 in Champaign.  They will be here at 2 P.M. for an interview.

Bet your sweet bippy I'll get in a plug for SAFR...not that they'll use it, but, I'll sure try!

I'm sure they will be interviewing a number of people, so mine might not make the news.

At least, they know I'm here!

[w00dc4ip]

I'd have to look at the DC laws more carefully but the judgement did state that the respondent (Heller) must be granted a license to carry, referring to the license needed to carry from room to room within the home, assuming he is covered by the Second Amendment (i.e. - not a criminal, not insane).  The question then is whether there is a seperate "carry" license required to carry outside the home.  If there are two seperate licenses, then this judgement did not grant carry (whether it be open or concealed) in DC.  If there is only one type of license to carry, and it is required for a person to carry inside their home (from room to room), as well as outside, then according to this judgement, anyone with a license to carry has that right.  Again, this would require more research into the DC laws to determine.

Regarding Carry and Licensing
In the ruling, Scalia hinted that the registration requirements my be struck down in a future case by stating that they were not considered, specifically since the respondent (Heller) stated in the original case that he would be satisfied with a license to fulfill the registartion requirement allowing him to legally obtain and possess a handgun for use in his home.  Scalia also noted that a fairly administered registration requirement "may" be within the scope of the law.  However he also noted in several places that the licensing of a right is invalid.  Regarding carry, he noted that there may be exceptions for limiting concaled carry, and there may be exceptions for locations such as schools and government buildings, but according to all the historical evidence, any law outright banning carry would also be unconstitutional.  In other words, Illinois transportation laws, amountint to a ban on open carry, are unconstitutional.  I would think we need to get as many cases against the Illinois laws to the Supreme Court as soon as possible, assuming the makeup of the court does not change.

I'll try to get through a full analysis soo, so far just finished Scalia's opinion.

w00dc4ip

[YouSeeMe]

johnyt101, on Jun 26 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Question, if in the courts opinion on page 11, they recognize the right to bear arms is an individual right not connected with militia service, then why did they not also strike down DCs ban on carrying weapons outside of the home? Was it because they didn't want to go any further than they had to?

You have to remember, they were only debating three issues in the Heller case: the handgun ban, the denial of licenses, and the 'break-down or lock' requirement.

The handgun ban and 'break-down or lock' portions of the law are right out with this opinion, and as they say in the full document, both parties are OK with licensing requirement, although:

opinion document pg. 67 said:

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.

which in essence declares DC a shall-issue district.

[TTIN]

As there are obvious pros and cons to both open carry and concealed carry,if we were "allowed" to lawfully have one or the other,I'm not so sure that I wouldn't choose open carry over CC.One thing that  immediatly comes to mind is comfort.Also you wouldn't have to worry about printing.
IF this were infact an option,I would have to give it some serious thought.

Any other comments?

[johnyt101]

it seems to me that Scalia and the opinion of the court believes that open carry is no doubt a right, concealed carry however, he makes it seem like a privilege. There ARE two different permits in DC one for carry in the home and one for outside if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong. Which is why I was confused as to why they didtnt strike down the carry ban outside of the home. DC Mayor said it was still illegal outside of the home, but what does he know...he doesn't even realize that a large number of handguns are semiautomatic...

[oneshot]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

As there are obvious pros and cons to both open carry and concealed carry,if we were "allowed" to lawfully have one or the other,I'm not so sure that I wouldn't choose open carry over CC.One thing that  immediatly comes to mind is comfort.Also you wouldn't have to worry about printing.
IF this were infact an option,I would have to give it some serious thought.

Any other comments?

The thing that concerns me with open carry with regard to muggers is the problem that they have in South Africa where it is more common for the thugs to simply shoot you and then retrieve valuables from your body.  The disadvantage that the good guy always has is that the bad guy has the advantage of surprise and ambush, they will usually get first option, first shot.  So if they recognize that you're armed they'll either more likely to leave you alone or more likely to sneak up on you for a coward's shot in order to neutralize you.  I've also related my story on this board in the past where a friend of mine and I were held up at gun point in South Africa.  They were very coordinated, one guy got the drop on us while two others crept up behind the two of us, silent as cats, to frisk us.  If that situation were to be repeated I would not want them to know I had a weapon that they could use on me or simply steal to use elsewhere; I'd much rather have a deep concealed weapon in a place that they're unlikely to check, leaving me the option to retaliate or to allow them to complete their heist and hopefully move on peacefully as they did in that particular situation.  

The three who held us up were very very nervous, I believe that had we been armed and had they discovered it, some triggers would have been pulled.  Situations like that do funny things to you, at the time I was amazingly calm and focussed but by the time we got back to our ship I was overwhelmed with adrenaline and rage, I wanted to hunt those guys down.  It was a feeling of great violation at the threat of my life and the theft of my property and I can very surely imagine that on their end of things, discovering a weapon on my person would further agitate an already aggressive and reactive assailant.  I do not see this as an argument against carry (obviously) but I see it as an argument for being very cautious and very prudent about how you go about it.  We've had quite a few street robberies around our area in the last couple of years and they use similar tactics, use of groups to ensure their safety and success.  Not approaching as you might assume, resorting to pushing a victim to the ground and attacking them up front to put them in a position of submission.  It isn't a simple matter of some guy walking up to you and pulling a gun, you have to think about how criminals might innovate to ply their trade on you.  Some crooks are really stupid, some aren't.  Some are pretty smart about it and they have the same fears and forethoughts about getting hurt as you, but in just the same way they have something that drives them to attack you whether it's hunger or needing a fix.

[Ol'Coach]

I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in constitutional legalese, but seems to me like, what got settled today was a clarification of a group vs individual guaranteed right.

Really doesn't change a whole lot, other than we don't have to listen to that old saw, "It pertains only to the militia."  I believe that everything is still gonna have to go through the courts to prove that an individual's right to own and/or "carry" a firearm has been violated by some local ordinance.  

T'ain't automatic, as Daley's rant should indicate!

[Molly B.]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court defined "the people", "keep and bear", now we move on to define "shall not be infringed".

We have our first building block - and what a foundation it is!

[oneshot]

I would venture to guess that "Jesus Jones" wouldn't agree with the application of their song to this situation, but it kind of fits for me.  

Quote

Right Here, Right Now - Jesus Jones

A woman on the radio talked about revolution
When its already passed her by
Bob Dylan didn't have this to sing about you
You know it feels good to be alive

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history

I saw the decade in, when it seemed
The world could change at the blink of an eye
And if anything
Then theres your sign... of the times

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now

I was alive and I waited, waited
I was alive and I waited for this
Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history

Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up from history

Right here, right now
There is no other place I want to be
Right here, right now
Watching the world wake up...

[Ol'Coach]

WICDTV, Ch 15 did show up.  Don't know what they'll use, but what happened outside the interview was good!

Gave "Chekky" (a young black lady who has interviewed me before) a bunch of SAFR flyers, filled her in on what was going on.  She said that the local station probably won't send anyone up, but she will make sure that the sister station in Chicago gets the info, and the local station here will use their feed.

Also, we had about a half hour chat about "assault weapons," gun bans, and most importantly, we talked about the ISP web site and its recommendations for a woman defending herself.  Her reaction?..."That's insulting!"  She promised to look it up for herself.  Also, she is considering getting her FOID and a handgun for her personal protection...said that with some of the areas she has to be in, and some of the things she has seen, she is beginning to feel the need!  (This is what led to the discussion of the ISP suggestions.)   I said, "Well, the ISP says you could use a nail file"      Her:  "WHAT?"

Showed her 3 semi-auto rifles: 1. H-K M770, H-K SL6, Sig556, explained why 1 would be classified as an "assault weapon, one wouldn't, and the 3rd would be a tossup the (SL6). She shouldered he Sig556 and when invited, said she would like to go shoot some day!

Ah, yes...one step at a time...this step with one of the WICDTV reporters!!

It has been a great afternoon!

[45superman]

Great work, Coach  !

[Ashdump]

Out-friggin-standing, Coach!
What would we do with out ya?

[flagtag]

Ol, on Jun 26 2008, 04:02 PM, said:

WICDTV, Ch 15 did show up.  Don't know what they'll use, but what happened outside the interview was good!

Gave "Chekky" (a young black lady who has interviewed me before) a bunch of SAFR flyers, filled her in on what was going on.  She said that the local station probably won't send anyone up, but she will make sure that the sister station in Chicago gets the info, and the local station here will use their feed.

Also, we had about a half hour chat about "assault weapons," gun bans, and most importantly, we talked about the ISP web site and its recommendations for a woman defending herself.  Her reaction?..."That's insulting!"  She promised to look it up for herself.  Also, she is considering getting her FOID and a handgun for her personal protection...said that with some of the areas she has to be in, and some of the things she has seen, she is beginning to feel the need!  (This is what led to the discussion of the ISP suggestions.)   I said, "Well, the ISP says you could use a nail file"      Her:  "WHAT?"

Showed her 3 semi-auto rifles: 1. H-K M770, H-K SL6, Sig556, explained why 1 would be classified as an "assault weapon, one wouldn't, and the 3rd would be a tossup the (SL6). She shouldered he Sig556 and when invited, said she would like to go shoot some day!

Ah, yes...one step at a time...this step with one of the WICDTV reporters!!

It has been a great afternoon!

Sounds like she is an extremely bright woman!  
Great job.  

[ishmo]

You da man Coach, great job