Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

GarandFan's Achievements


Member (24/24)

  1. Prof. Shapiro and others at Cato are somewhat incredulous ... http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-wasnt-serious-about-second-amendment
  2. I beg your pardon ... I think that the only people who know why they denied cert are the justices themselves, along with some of their staffers. There are myriad reasons why they may have denied cert ... and you should feel free to speculate, as everyone is free to do.
  3. Because such petitions are routine in cases like this? I don't know anymore about the legal system than you do sir, I just don't understand why it was so late hearing about it figured at least Chicago media or Todd would have said something before 10:30pm ish. Onytay: There is nothing at all fishy about requests for extensions in cases like this. Now you know. At any rate, please take care to avoid accusations like you've implied above (eg. post #311) ... accusations that the "leaders" of this board are not being forthright with you. You have no basis for such and all it accomplishes is the needless promotion of negativity and bad blood.
  4. There are few things we can be sure of, but one of those things is that people like Currie are going to try anything they think might thwart the right to bear arms ... That is simply a given. And speculating here about ways they may go about doing so would be counter-productive.
  5. That really is pretty damn good ! Glad you feel that way, even following the aftermath of his quite reasonable opinion that we should hold off on Donne Trotter's crucifixion.
  6. From the Tribune article, quoting Lee Goodman of "Stop Concealed Carry Coalition": “The decision, contrary to fundamental legal principles, took away the people's right, through their state legislatures, to make laws to protect themselves that are relevant to the conditions present in each state.” That's hilarious. I am reassured to know that our opposition is comprised of such legal and intellectual heavyweights and Mr. Goodman.
  7. "Fish" comprise a paraphyletic group of vertebrates, which contains a common ancestor and some, but not all, of it's descendants. For "fish" to be meaningful in terms of monophyly and ancestor-descendant relationships, the tetrapods would have to be included in "fish" as well. And humans, after all, are merely derived fish. Hope that cleared it up for you.
  8. In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. ... Anyway the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.
  9. Hope no one minds me posting what I consider are seminal passages from this ruling ... Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
  10. Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136, 139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that eighteenth-century English law recognized a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense, and protection against both public and private violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said that American law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And in contrast to the situation in England, in less peaceable America a distinction between keeping arms for self-defense in the home and carrying them outside the home would, as we said, have been irrational. All this is debatable of course, but we are bound by the Supreme Court’s historical analysis because it was central to the Court’s holding in Heller.
  11. The Supreme Court rejected the argument [collective right]. The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis. That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that “two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists.” Id. Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 5 carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592. Confrontations are not limited to the home. The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
  12. Thanks for posting I have not yet read it either. The concluding sentence may be somewhat telling of the trajectory of the opinion ... In the absence of clearer indication that the Second Amendment codified a generally recognized right to carry arms in public for self-defense, I would leave this judgment in the hands of the State of Illinois.
  • Create New...