Jump to content


Photo

a quick read of McDonald


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
31 replies to this topic

#1 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 01 July 2010 - 10:27 PM

Guys and Gals –



I have not had the time to completely digest McDonald and compare notes with Heller. I have seen a lot said and hands wrung on our side about not getting P or I or they didn't say this and they said that.

We now have our hands full fighting Daley etc al II. We have an election on the horizon which could really turn the tide for Illinois.

So my cursory review of McDonald has a few things for you to look at and I will try to get more in depth maybe this weekend.

1. Search Heller and see how many times the word "reasonable" is used in the majority opinion. How many is it? And for what?

2. How many times is it used in McDonald? And for what?

I nor we can do anything about P or I and we can debate if that is good or bad. But I choose not to look at what coulda, shoulda, woulda. I look to the words of the Court. And on this Eve of the 4th of July, with this freedom loving weekend ahead of us in full glory, I leave you to think about three simple things.

1. What did McDonald hold? I have spent hours reading and re-reading McDonald. Underlining pertant parts and parsing every sentence. But it wasn't till I stopped and looked and read the last sentence that it sunk in.

"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." Pg 44

That is what they held. Not dicta, not a footnote we HOLD. And nowhere in this do we see the word handgun. Nor do we see home. So now let us turn to Heller.

2. The first "holding" in Heller says:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."



Do you see the word handgun? They mention home but 'for lawful purposes, such as' not limited to, not only in.


Again this was a holding of the case and the first holding of the case listed.

3. So let us turn ourselves to the definition of the Second Amendment. They have already "held" that it is a right unconnected from the militia. The court also "held":



"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

And so how did they define the "operative clause"?

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." Pg 19

A + B = C. I see a path. I believe the words in front of my eyes, not the wishful thinking press releases of the gun hating hordes.

How many times and for what did they use the word reasonable? In McDonald's Majority opinion -- 2. The exact same number that the words 'shall not be infringed' were used in Heller to describe the right to keep and carry in case of confrontation. Only reasonable was used to describe the defendants losing arguements.

This weekend, I'll hoist a beer to Otis McDonald, Dave & Colleen Lawson, and Adam Orlov. I think we have much to celebrate and look forward to. You may not have signed the Declaration of Independance, But you're just as important this weekend as those 56 from 1776.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#2 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 01 July 2010 - 11:02 PM

Guys and Gals –



I have not had the time to completely digest McDonald and compare notes with Heller. I have seen a lot said and hands wrung on our side about not getting P or I or they didn't say this and they said that.

We now have our hands full fighting Daley etc al II. We have an election on the horizon which could really turn the tide for Illinois.

So my cursory review of McDonald has a few things for you to look at and I will try to get more in depth maybe this weekend.

1. Search Heller and see how many times the word "reasonable" is used in the majority opinion. How many is it? And for what?

2. How many times is it used in McDonald? And for what?

I nor we can do anything about P or I and we can debate if that is good or bad. But I choose not to look at what coulda, shoulda, woulda. I look to the words of the Court. And on this Eve of the 4th of July, with this freedom loving weekend ahead of us in full glory, I leave you to think about three simple things.

1. What did McDonald hold? I have spent hours reading and re-reading McDonald. Underlining pertant parts and parsing every sentence. But it wasn't till I stopped and looked and read the last sentence that it sunk in.

"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." Pg 44

That is what they held. Not dicta, not a footnote we HOLD. And nowhere in this do we see the word handgun. Nor do we see home. So now let us turn to Heller.

2. The first "holding" in Heller says:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."



Do you see the word handgun? They mention home but 'for lawful purposes, such as' not limited to, not only in.


Again this was a holding of the case and the first holding of the case listed.

3. So let us turn ourselves to the definition of the Second Amendment. They have already "held" that it is a right unconnected from the militia. The court also "held":



"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

And so how did they define the "operative clause"?

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." Pg 19

A + B = C. I see a path. I believe the words in front of my eyes, not the wishful thinking press releases of the gun hating hordes.

How many times and for what did they use the word reasonable? In McDonald's Majority opinion -- 2. The exact same number that the words 'shall not be infringed' were used in Heller to describe the right to keep and carry in case of confrontation. Only reasonable was used to describe the defendants losing arguements.

This weekend, I'll hoist a beer to Otis McDonald, Dave & Colleen Lawson, and Adam Orlov. I think we have much to celebrate and look forward to. You may not have signed the Declaration of Independance, But you're just as important this weekend as those 56 from 1776.


This was great to read at the end of this very long week. We're gonna party like it's 1789!

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#3 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 02 July 2010 - 05:45 AM

Thank you TV, Otis McDonald, Dave & Colleen Lawson, and Adam Orlov. I may not hoist a beer for you this weekend, but I will most certainly hold up a bbq'd rib, chomp on it and say thank you.

#4 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 02 July 2010 - 06:17 AM

If you update the verbage, "keep and bear" becomes "own and carry".

There's decades of debates and law suits coming to define "reasonable", "regulations", and all the minutia, but the fact remains. The highest court in the land has confirmed that citizens have the right to own and carry firearms for any lawful purpose with Heller. McDonald says that no element of government, small or large can interfere with that right.

I think I hear changes in Illinois gun law rumbling in the very near future.

Eventually, Daley and all his little games will be struck down. We can expedite things by getting involved in the campaigns of the most gun friendly candidates available to us this fall. Let's become a little more like the NRA, "Single Issue", at least for this election cycle. Remember, the Second Amendment insures all the rest.


That's my rant for this morning.

Again, thanks to all the plaintiffs, the attorneys, Todd and the NRA, Richard and Don of the ISRA, the SAF and everyone else that had a hand in this court case. I raise my glass of iced tea and one (or several) ears of fresh sweet corn to you this weekend!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#5 Blade13

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 10

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:05 AM

It seems to me that this ruling should make it legal to open carry in Illinois. I suspect however police would still arrest. Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this?

NRA Patriot Life Member
ISRA Life Member

GSL


#6 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,097 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:21 AM

Todd I just realized that Gov Rick Perry of Texas would be a foul with Richies laws if he was within King Richard's realm.

1. for carrying a pistol out when jogging.
2. for having a laser aiming device on his ruger pistol.
The Governor of Texas would be a criminal in the eyes of Mayor Daleys law. I love to hear that in a speech at SAFR.

As Chicago and DC are intertwined with each other on what the courts will finally settle on as a standard acceptable minimum, Shirley Surly other areas will follow suit.

Cook county is just about a carbon copy of anything Chicago does, And then theres California and Bloomberg's New York. This needs to be fought every step of the way.

#7 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:34 AM

It seems to me that this ruling should make it legal to open carry in Illinois. I suspect however police would still arrest. Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this?


You may want to talk to Ashrak about that. I believe that's what he's planning to do.

#8 Bitter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 08

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:02 AM

It seems to me that this ruling should make it legal to open carry in Illinois. I suspect however police would still arrest. Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this?


I am curious as to why people seem to think that open carry is authorized whereas concealed is not. There is no distinction or discussion of these issues in either case.

And yes, you will be arrested for UUW for carrying in Illinois. The law is in effect until struck down.
_________________

Nothing contained in this post is to be construed as legal advice. Any stated opinions of law are my own. Contact a lawyer for an analysis of any legal rights or obligations you might have.

#9 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:05 AM

I suspect that in the minds of Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas, "reasonable restrictions" starts and ends with laws against felons and mentally ill being able to legally own or carry firearms.
Of course the Brady bunch thinks that the sky is the limit. That's why I asked the question yeturday if we're going to have to have one more SCOTUS case so they can define reasonable.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#10 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:12 AM

I suspect that in the minds of Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas, "reasonable restrictions" starts and ends with laws against felons and mentally ill being able to legally own or carry firearms.
Of course the Brady bunch thinks that the sky is the limit. That's why I asked the question yeturday if we're going to have to have one more SCOTUS case so they can define reasonable.


Drylok, not necessarily directed at you, just a general statement to all.

IMHO, there will be MANY more SCOTUS cases. The Anti's have been trying for many decades to get the ruling they want, why would they quit now?? Again, for those who think that the power to appoint SCOTUS judges for LIFE doesn't amount to much, we have 4 anti gun judges on the bench now, 2 of them have a long, glorious carreer ahead of them.

We are one heartbeat away from losing the Second Amendment. Granted, it wouldn't happen immeadiately, it might be many years in litigation, but give them a 5-4 anti vote and they will do everything in their power to overturn Heller and McDonald and put their views in place.

Think about that the next time the moderate candidate isn't "conservative" enough and you throw away a vote on a candidate that won't get 5% of the total to "make a statement" or "teach the ®'s a lesson". I'm as much for conservative ideals as anyone, but sometimes things have to be gained by degrees.

Vote this fall and work for the candidates of your choice up till Nov. 2nd!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#11 Ashrak

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:14 AM

I will offer that Todd is right on the money here. I think we got a mixed bag in McDonald and although it didn't go quite as far on the P or I aspect as I wish, it is there none the less. Thomas wrote he could not go along with incorporation on "process" alone. I read that as saying if P or I is not advanced at all by this decision (even though it doesn't disturb SlaughterHouse all by itself) then his concurrence would have had to be a dissent. That would mean that the Second Amendment would not have been incorporated. But it was. Thomas' piece was among the majority. P or I has been advanced and played it part in incorporation.

Here, I will say all the questions in the dissent torqued me off. Here is why. SCOTUS is tasked with ANSWERING questions, not asking them and leaving them unanswered. Shame on the dissenters on that front.

On Buzz's point, I have attempted face to face contact with the Sheriff once already but he was "in training". With the Holiday weekend afoot, I don't see any chance of a face to face until at least next week. Maybe that isn't such a bad thing. Maybe giving all our elected officials next week to ponder the reality of what took place is beneficial. My path is mine and I don;t expect anyone to approve or agree. Folks can do as they want. First I am going to the Sheriff, then the AG, then my own legislators and the Governor. I am not expecting a response from the AG or the Legislative politicos based on past experience of being ignored on that front. But I know it is prudent to demonstrate yet another attempt. Chain of command, right?

When it comes down to it, the individual right to carry has been affirmed and it is not limited to in the home or within your abode, though those are acceptable examples of proper places. To be sure, some places carrying is not yet acceptable are schools and government buildings. I point out here that there is a very distinct difference laid out here - even if it is not so self evident. Notice, it doesn't say public property. If in the home was the extent, the words public property or government property would have been employed instead of government buildings.

My position is that we must press for answers from the Sheriff. I know he doesn't have them, and that is the point of asking, exposing that he doesn't have them and he can't have them shows why Lisa has to step up to the plate. Sorry Neil, but that is your job. Once that mission is accomplished, Lisa is on the hot seat. She is supposed to be on OUR side, you know the side of PROTECTING RIGHTS and it is my position that putting the focus of pressure on her will see her daddy be far more willing to go for allowing a CC bill to come to the floor for a vote ASAP in order to get her off the hot seat. Either that or something similar to what took place in Wisconsin must happen.

So here is where I stand, they get next week to prepare. Then, after that, it is time for a full court press.

For many years we have had a firearm absent ammunition. That being the Second Amendment with no viable application to our situation here in Illinois. Those days are over. We just got a box of ammo and it is of effective caliber. We all know that sometimes an invader has to actually be shot, but we also know that most often times the mere display of a real means of self defense will make transgressors stand down. It is my hope that is how this works out.

I am going to keep saying this over and over.

The Governor should call a press conference with the Lisa Madigan, John Cullerton and Mike Madigan present. Special session should be called and the right to carry should be addressed openly and honestly. So too should Preemption (at least as it pertains to the new reality of these decisions ramifications) and the criminal code of 1961 and the wildlife code. Absent these actions, our elected officials are clearly being openly derelict in their duties for all to see.
That an individual right exists requires that certain policy positions be removed from the table of debate.


I write, therefore I am.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." - Andrew Breitbart referring to the Mainstream Media.

#12 Fido

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined: 26-June 08

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:26 AM

I will be raising a beer to ALL of the plaintiffs who made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and also to the ISRA NRA SAF and all the others who helped with this case. Also to be recognized are the countless individuals who donated money to the cause. You are all heroes as well.

As to the carry debate, while I agree with Todd's reading that A+B=C, this state and Chicago will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of freedom.
I really can't believe that our AG is going to come out publicly and state "well that's it! There really is nothing we can do about it!"
Now that I think about it, has Ms. Madigan made any public statements about the ruling?
9/11/01
Never forgetting means NEVER forgetting

#13 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:50 AM

I will be raising a beer to ALL of the plaintiffs who made huge sacrifices for our freedoms and also to the ISRA NRA SAF and all the others who helped with this case. Also to be recognized are the countless individuals who donated money to the cause. You are all heroes as well.

As to the carry debate, while I agree with Todd's reading that A+B=C, this state and Chicago will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of freedom.
I really can't believe that our AG is going to come out publicly and state "well that's it! There really is nothing we can do about it!"
Now that I think about it, has Ms. Madigan made any public statements about the ruling?



I'm quite sure that Ms. Madigan and her Daddy will discuss this subject over the holiday weekend to determine what Ms. Madigan's position will be!!

THAT'S a dynasty that we MUST end before it takes over the rest of the state.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#14 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 02 July 2010 - 05:42 PM

Ash --

between this post and other let me caution you.

All of these things may not work or move as fast as many of us would like. But that is the system. The differance between us and the gay marrage crew is that no one gets a felony and the swat team called on them for trying to get maried witht he same sex partner.

We are working things out as we go through the decision and aprce all of it out and compare it to statutes and precident etc. etc. The worst thing to happen is for someone to go of half cocked, set a felony, then get jammed up with a bad defense and run it up the flag pole to set a real bad precident. Go look at the 7th circuit case on registration that came down a year ago as an example.

right now we got the Sheriffs on our side. Go talk to one and present an opinion on McDonald and the issue. But piss him off and a few others with demands and you come off more as a malitia type and run the chance of having them start to turn on us.

We broke the blue wall on RTC. Now let us work towards getting the rest of the cops on our side and gettign this resolved to where we can carry anywhere in Illinois.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#15 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:08 PM

Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this?


Forget it. That office will give no interpretation to a private citizen.

Speaking from experience!
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#16 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:53 PM

[quote name='Ol'Coach' date='02 July 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1278119308' post='221026']
[quote]Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this? [/quote]

Forget it. That office will give no interpretation to a private citizen.

Speaking from experience!
[/quote]
The AG is the state's lawyer. It's not appropriate for the AG to provide a legal opinion to a private citizen.

This is very clearly stated in the state constitution.

[quote]SECTION 15. ATTORNEY GENERAL - DUTIES
The Attorney General shall be the legal officer of the
State, and shall have the duties and powers that may be
prescribed by law.[/quote]

[quote](15 ILCS 205/4) (from Ch. 14, par. 4)
Sec. 4. The duties of the Attorney General shall be‑‑
***
Eighth ‑ To give written opinions, when requested by either branch of the general assembly, or any committee thereof, upon constitutional or legal questions.
[/quote]

So the answer is if you want an AG opinion, have a friendly GA committee ask for it.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#17 Bitter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 08

Posted 02 July 2010 - 10:07 PM

[quote name='bob' date='02 July 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1278125585' post='221058']
[quote name='Ol'Coach' date='02 July 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1278119308' post='221026']
[quote]Has anyone contacted the Attorney General about this? [/quote]

Forget it. That office will give no interpretation to a private citizen.

Speaking from experience!
[/quote]
The AG is the state's lawyer. It's not appropriate for the AG to provide a legal opinion to a private citizen.

This is very clearly stated in the state constitution.

[quote]SECTION 15. ATTORNEY GENERAL - DUTIES
The Attorney General shall be the legal officer of the
State, and shall have the duties and powers that may be
prescribed by law.[/quote]

[quote](15 ILCS 205/4) (from Ch. 14, par. 4)
Sec. 4. The duties of the Attorney General shall be‑‑
***
Eighth ‑ To give written opinions, when requested by either branch of the general assembly, or any committee thereof, upon constitutional or legal questions.
[/quote]

So the answer is if you want an AG opinion, have a friendly GA committee ask for it.

[/quote]

That is a duty, not a limited power. It does not say that the AG does not have the power to issue an opinion of law to a private citizen, it just says that the AG has to do it for the govt on request, though it does not surprise me that our particular AG does not issue to citizens. The language is pretty boilerplate, AGs of many states can and do issue legal opinions, though they don't have to.
_________________

Nothing contained in this post is to be construed as legal advice. Any stated opinions of law are my own. Contact a lawyer for an analysis of any legal rights or obligations you might have.

#18 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 02 July 2010 - 10:22 PM

Well, like I stated, regardless of the reason, after all the legalese, a private citizen will not get an opinion from the office of the AG!!
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#19 Don Gwinn

    President, SCRA

  • Moderator
  • 2,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 04

Posted 03 July 2010 - 03:17 AM

I can't argue with TV's logic and I don't see it as wishful thinking. Mara Georges would disagree--publicly--but I've been taking everything she says with a grain of salt. She's an advocate.
So is TV, but you won't Georges giving you chapter and verse from the decision to back it up when she says, for instance, that SCOTUS held that "you can own one handgun" or that "you can own the minimum necessary for self-defense."


________________________________________________________________________________

Illinois Gun Owners' Lobbying Day

March 5, 2014

Be there or everyone will see that you have four equal sides and four 90-degree angles!

________________________________________________________________________________


#20 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 03 July 2010 - 07:40 AM

We're gonna party like it's 1789!


Yesterday, I had the pleasure to fire a bunch of full-auto guns, in celebration of Independence Day and the McDonald win.

Congratulations, everyone!

And nice write-up, Todd.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#21 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 July 2010 - 08:14 AM

We're gonna party like it's 1789!


Yesterday, I had the pleasure to fire a bunch of full-auto guns, in celebration of Independence Day and the McDonald win.

Congratulations, everyone!

And nice write-up, Todd.



Sigh............Things are so different outside this fifedom known as Illinois. Hopefully McDonald/Heller is the beginning of the end of the infringement on Illinoisians' rights. Our citizens are beginning to wake up, but have 50 years of brainwashing to clear from their minds before they can accept the mindset towards firearms that most of the rest of Americans hold.

It must be accomplished from the grass roots up. I fear that the minds of the top officials in Illinois were numbed to citizens actually using firearms long ago.

Thanks to Todd and Molly and Richard and Mike W. and Dr. G and all the others that are in this fight everyday. And thanks to Otis and Dave and Colleen and Adam and the attorneys that took up this fight, and invested time, money and emotions to win this battle. The war is not over, but a key victory has been won.

Happy Independence Day everybody!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#22 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 03 July 2010 - 08:19 AM

Ok and just what is an AG opinion going to get us – if it goes against us? You assume that the Court and their logic or our side will carry the day. Lisa is a political creature.


The black letter of the law was clear on unloaded and enclosed in a case. But I sat through the oral arguments at the Illinois Supreme Court and watched the tortured logic they tried to use to not only argue against the center console, but push the notion, that Daley has in the new ordinance, about it having to be a case or container designed for a FIREARM.


My bet is she will parrot Chicago's line about only hand guns and only in the home etc etc etc. So now you have the legal opinion of the state giving cover to the squishes and others.


Don't you remember the amicus brief she filed with the Court over McDonald? How about this little gem in their opening statement:

"Until now, it was well-settled that the Second Amendment did not interfere with state and local efforts to balance competing interests and formulate proper limits on the possession and use of firearms."


Or how about this one:


"For these reasons, amici States urge the Court to affirm the decision below and confirm their ability to protect the health and safety of their residents by regulating firearms within their borders."


And they took their lead from the 7th Cir court of appleals:


"Moreover, any argument for incorporation must consider principles of "[f]ederalism"—specifically, the view that "local differences are to be cherished as 4

elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." Id. at 9. This "is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is [the] right to carry any particular kind of weapon" recognized in Heller. Ibid."


get that local differences are to be cherished. Arguing against a national standard for a right for their concept of federalism is "older and more deeply rooted".


I could go on and on but that's just in the first 3 or 4 pages of their brief. And you think Lisa is gonna have some sort of epiphany and say of goly gee I was wrong – not on your life. Lisa will give aid and comfort to the City and her anti-gun beliefs.


She has no credible opponent. She will oppose our bills. I say stay away from her unless you just want to give the other side ammunition with her taking their side.

Do not confuse your interpratation in McDonald/Heller, your belief in an individual right to own a firearm with your wishful thinking that an anti-gun ag is goign to side with you beacuse the Supreme court says we are right.


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#23 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 July 2010 - 09:15 AM

Ok and just what is an AG opinion going to get us – if it goes against us? You assume that the Court and their logic or our side will carry the day. Lisa is a political creature.


The black letter of the law was clear on unloaded and enclosed in a case. But I sat through the oral arguments at the Illinois Supreme Court and watched the tortured logic they tried to use to not only argue against the center console, but push the notion, that Daley has in the new ordinance, about it having to be a case or container designed for a FIREARM.


My bet is she will parrot Chicago's line about only hand guns and only in the home etc etc etc. So now you have the legal opinion of the state giving cover to the squishes and others.


Don't you remember the amicus brief she filed with the Court over McDonald? How about this little gem in their opening statement:

"Until now, it was well-settled that the Second Amendment did not interfere with state and local efforts to balance competing interests and formulate proper limits on the possession and use of firearms."


Or how about this one:


"For these reasons, amici States urge the Court to affirm the decision below and confirm their ability to protect the health and safety of their residents by regulating firearms within their borders."


And they took their lead from the 7th Cir court of appleals:


"Moreover, any argument for incorporation must consider principles of "[f]ederalism"—specifically, the view that "local differences are to be cherished as 4

elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." Id. at 9. This "is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is [the] right to carry any particular kind of weapon" recognized in Heller. Ibid."


get that local differences are to be cherished. Arguing against a national standard for a right for their concept of federalism is "older and more deeply rooted".


I could go on and on but that's just in the first 3 or 4 pages of their brief. And you think Lisa is gonna have some sort of epiphany and say of goly gee I was wrong – not on your life. Lisa will give aid and comfort to the City and her anti-gun beliefs.


She has no credible opponent. She will oppose our bills. I say stay away from her unless you just want to give the other side ammunition with her taking their side.

Do not confuse your interpratation in McDonald/Heller, your belief in an individual right to own a firearm with your wishful thinking that an anti-gun ag is goign to side with you beacuse the Supreme court says we are right.



True all 'dat. The opinions of Lisa and her compatriates are the reason that we have McDonald and Heller. And if you think that a little old thing like the Supreme court is going to change her mind without a long legal battle specifically against her then you're sadly mistaken.

Leave her alone. When you stir stuff up, it stinks worse. Hers certainly will.

It's been said all along that McDonald on its own will not be the end all/be all to gun rights. It and of itself will not change anything dramatically. It ain't gonna happen overnight!! What McDonald and Heller do is to give us the legal foundation to now attack these laws and to pass carry based partly on the fact that the supreme court of the land says it's a "fundamental right". But it only gives us the foundation on which to build these cases, it doesn't allow us to cram things down their throat, as much as we would like to.

Concealed carry in Illinois will come from the legislature by having the electorate support it and contact thier legislators about it. And, by having a Governor that will sign it. That can be done in spite of the position of certain municipalities IF we have the people in Springfield that we need. That's why this election is so important.

Heller and now McDonald are great victories in the court for our side. Not in what they do, but in what they will allow us to do.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#24 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,679 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 03 July 2010 - 09:17 AM

One thing working against us is SCOTUS stated "reasonable" restrictions.

The man writing the restrictions isn't a reasonable man.

SCOTUS gave Daley too much credit for being reasonable.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#25 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,311 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 03 July 2010 - 09:58 AM

Hi,

I see way too much emphasis on the favorable "in the home" aspect of these two decisions -- essentially the "keep" aspect of the Second Amendment.

The next battle to be fought is to get clear language on being able to protect yourself outside the home -- the "bear" component that needs to be solidified in caselaw.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

#26 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 03 July 2010 - 10:40 AM

Lou & Rich --

read the decisions again. How many times di the MAJORITY use the word reasonable to describe the right? and where did they use the word home. Don't buy into the antis spinning. They are takign the finge elements of the decisions and trying to make the the majoity opinions holding. They are not
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#27 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 July 2010 - 11:23 AM

Ran a quick search of the McDonald decision via the search function in Adobe Acrobat (thanks Todd). I see nowhere, not one place, in the majority opnion where the word reasonable is used to describe a restriction that might be considered by states or municipalities. A place or two that Alito refers to the "Municipalities Amici" as they reference such a restriction, but nowhere does it say anything about allowing or suggesting a "reasonable" restriction or gun law. The dissenters use it many times to describe what they would like to see, but, remember, they lost.

Same with "home". It is used many times to describe a "lawful" usage of guns, but never to restrict their useage.

Do your own searches, correct me if I'm wrong.

The antis spin this enough that even we are believing them.

I'll look at Heller later, after I enjoy this wonderful afternoon behind a lawn mower!!

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#28 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,311 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 03 July 2010 - 12:16 PM

Hi,

Not to be argumentative, but there are enough references to "home" in both Heller and McDonald to worry me. Indeed, both cases sought to obtain permission to possess firearms in the home -- not in public.

It's great that the 2A has been incorporated. But unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in this decision that helps define or describe the boundaries of the phrase, "keep and bear". That is the core issue remaining to be decided.

I know there also is language in both that opens the door to carry-related activity, but it worries me that the home references are there. If we lose even one of the solid five votes we have now, there is now something the liberal wing of the court can hang its hat on -- to nullify the broader effects of both decisions, without actually overturning them.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

#29 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 03 July 2010 - 12:28 PM

Rich yopu are mistaken




"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." Pg 19 Heller v District of Columbia

This is the definition of keep or bear that the majority court settled on.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#30 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 03 July 2010 - 12:55 PM

Hi,

Not to be argumentative, but there are enough references to "home" in both Heller and McDonald to worry me. Indeed, both cases sought to obtain permission to possess firearms in the home -- not in public.

It's great that the 2A has been incorporated. But unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in this decision that helps define or describe the boundaries of the phrase, "keep and bear". That is the core issue remaining to be decided.

I know there also is language in both that opens the door to carry-related activity, but it worries me that the home references are there. If we lose even one of the solid five votes we have now, there is now something the liberal wing of the court can hang its hat on -- to nullify the broader effects of both decisions, without actually overturning them.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips



Rich,

Might I suggest that you go back and read those instances in context and then tell us where the word home is used to restrict the use of firearms in self defense ONLY to the home. The majority speaks a couple of times about a handgun being the best choice for use in the home, or the need for defense being "most acute" in the home. But no where that I read does it say anything about restricting the right to self defense or the right to keep and bear arms exclusively to the home.

In the quote from Heller that Todd posted, the court gives us it's definition of 'Keep and Bear" to be "possess and carry". And it does so in pretty strong language, "...... we find........ not we think or it could be or most likely. Just we find.

I'm not a lawyer, nor well versed in legalese, but I think that means "this is the way it is". And again, that's the court majority speaking.

Gotta mow.
AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB