Finally, Illinois is on board.
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2012/12/11 ... n-control/
From the ruling:
We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 21 them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;
The legislature has 180 days to change the law.
From the ruling:
We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 21 them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;
The legislature has 180 days to change the law.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loc ... an-665881/
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/loc ... ff-665617/
Man, alone in house, kills self with revolver. Police believe [assume] it was accidental. Odd.
woot
"I said on the floor, `A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days, you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days, the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling.' Today's the day. The court's pretty much said there's no restrictions," he said.
Amendment II. 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.
THIS part seems to get glossed over quite a bit when it comes to this kind of discussion.
So I would like to know how you guys view this in its entire context , not just the keep and bear part.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed.
As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
In that version, it's pretty clear (in the first clause, prior to the comma) that the author wanted civilians to have the ability to organize into a quasi-military body for the purpose of protecting its own liberties. To reasonably do that, the people (civilians) would have to have prior possession of firearms; hence the second clause, after the comma.
Still, its not addressing the well regulated militia part. more so the well regulated part. I get it that a militia is a group of non-professional "soldiers".
So what is at issue with a state regulating its citizen "militia"?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The regulated part could mean just about anything. For example, if I wanted to continue taking the sentence quite literally, say, diagram it grammatically, I could say that "well-regulated" applies to the militia, not the bearing and keeping. Thus the regulations would only apply once the militia is formed, not to the civilians bearing and keeping in peacetime.
I'm not a free-for-all gun guy, so I wouldn't necessarily make that argument, but I certainly think it's there for the making.
Just dont cherry pick this part or that.
I'm serious, I'd like to hear your argument about this based on the whole amendment.
Pretend I'm ignorant on this
How is it against this amendment to deny CCW?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14