New lawsuit filed in Chicago response to McDonald handgun ban case.

[-..__...]

Looks like Commissar Daley and his politburo are about to get stomped in the mud again. B-)

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/bensonvchicago1.pdf

[Statistical]

1. They just never learn do they.

Pushing back all these infringing violations across the country will take thousands of lawsuits.

Given they can pass what ever they want then use taxpayer money in futile lawsuit, lose, then pass something slightly less restrictive but still unconstitutional, waste more money in lawsuit, lose, ..... etc it will take very long time to push it back.

Now if politicians could be held criminally and civilly liable for passing laws that violate Constitutional Rights well we would see reason included in so called "reasonable restrictions".

[slackmaster]

3. I think there is only one solution for the Daley machine

Fix the corrupt election process.

[Callisto32]

7. Unfortunately,

the highest level of criminality, where much of the government functions, is rarely prosecuted.

[virginia mountainman]

2. We scooped each other!

Here we go!!!!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gU7WxRKpc8kl8FHMaAXz5zvrn-EwD9GQ9NB00


http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/lawsuit-filed-against-chicagos-new-gun-ordinance.html

I deleated my other thread..

[Hoopla Phil]

4. I was reading elsewhere an very interesting point on this.

This new law encompasses almost all the laws states have across the nation restricting guns. Daly basically loaded it up with everything he could stopping just short of a ban. This will be a GREAT law to take back to SCOTUS. A victory will have the affect of striking down laws in many states across the nation. Thank you again Daly!!!

[virginia mountainman]

5. He truly is the gift that keeps on giving..

And to top that, he pays the bills for killing gun control laws...

[Callisto32]

8. No, the fleeced people of Chicago are paying that bill....

It's like when the police murder someone, and then the people who were harmed (mostly the family of the victim, but rogue cops harm us all) get to foot the bill to put the guy on "administrative leave" and basically pay themselves any damages found...

[one-eyed fat man]

10. You know better..................

'....he pays the bills...'

That self important blowhard doesn't pay for SQUAT!!!!!

He is not picking up the tab for those legal bills.

He is not paying the fine or legal bills for chopping up Meigs' runway.

He doesn't fork over the 4.8 million a year to the The Special Police Services section for his bodyguards.

Guess which 2,896,016 poor chumps are getting stuck with the bill?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. No, his poor constitutents do.

And that really IS a travesty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Money spent on law suits that could be spent on

law enforcement and programs to keep kids out of crime.

Even a "bleeding heart" like me sees this as a waste of time and money.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. You may find it interesting to know that

Daley has a relative (cannot remember the exact connection) that works for the law firm that represents the city of Chicago. Hummmm.

[Statistical]

6. If I didn't feel so bad for the law abiding in Chicago I would fund Daly re-election campaign.

He is the gift that keeps on giving.

Often it is difficult to get a good test case. Either the law isn't "too bad" or the person is a convicted felon who is using the 2A as a long shot to avoid prosecution (Miller).

In both Heller & McDonald you have a perfect case.

Law Abiding citizens rights vs. nearly perfect oppressive law.

Heller was perfect case specifically because it was in DC. Heller then opened the door to McDonald and McDonald opens the door to the country.

[DonP]

9. I've been saying for over a year - he never had any intention of abiding by the decision.

He plans on stalling this through the courts again and again for at least another decade.

But, he is following a fine old family tradition.

His old man behaved the same way when faced with forced integration in the '60's. He stalled, postponed, redrew school districts under the guise of "neighborhood schools", to keep Blacks in their place.

One of the old man's "high points" was when an off duty city worker hit Martin Luther King Jr. in the head with a piece of a brick in the Marquette Park march. Daley's old man, with Richie standing behind him on the podium, referred to King as an "outside agitator" and "trouble maker".

Maybe that's why Daley kept the barbed wire barricades up along the Rock Island tracks to keep the project residents out of the Bridgeport neighborhoods until the late 1980's and '90's?

Ah, nothing like family tradition.

Just because SCOTUS says its the law of the land, fuck em, they don't run this city. You show them what you're really made of Richie!

Hell, it's not like it's your money anyway and you've already got your bodyguards.

[DissedByBush]

71. The rights of the people are only an inconvenience to be worked around

Sick people with this attitude should not be allowed in government.

Bush was a perfect example. Daley is showing the same colors.

[KansasVoter]

12. So the city should just lay back and let the fucking NRA do what they want?

I understand you think everyone should be able to carry automatic weapons everywhere but there are people here who are responsible.

[slackmaster]

13. The city should follow the law and abide by the Constitution and the SC's decision

I understand you think everyone should be able to carry automatic weapons everywhere...

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[KansasVoter]

22. Of course you interpret the SCOTUS ruling different than everyone else......

They said there was some room for regulation. That is what Chicago is trying to do.

Sorry they are not bowing to the NRA like you do.

[X_Digger]

23. Perhaps you should read the Aldermen's comments-

Alderman Mary Ann Smith echoed her fellows on the City Council, vowing to limit gun ownership with new legal restrictions and thanking “everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.” In describing the new Ordinance on July 1, 2010, Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges lauded the restrictions and concluded that “{w}e’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has.”

That's not "some room for regulation", by any stretch of the imagination.

[KansasVoter]

26. Big fucking deal. I could have you read some others.

[Statistical]

28. It is a big deal. It goes to intent.

Previously the court has ruled that if a law is created with the INTENT of infringing upon rights or creating an unnecessary burden then it is Unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter how much of a burden is actually created the intent alone causes the law to fail Constitutional scrutiny.

There is something called strict scrutiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

What you seem to be missing is the Alderman is bragging that the laws intentionally violate Constitutional scrutiny. Thus any infringement isn't accidental or by omission but intentional.

[X_Digger]

35. Didn't read the complaint, did ya?

There's a ton of comments that these idiots made demonstrating the intent to make it as hard as possible to exercise this right.

.. which is in itself illegal

http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Here's some text by the ACLU you should check out-

http://www.aclu.org/content/aclu-amicus-brief-united-states-v-lanier

In Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, this Court rejected a vagueness challenge to criminal convictions under 18 U.S.C. §242. It ruled that the statute's broad terms, criminalizing all willful deprivations of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States," were not unduly vague for two reasons: First, the "rights, privileges, or immunities" in question must be "made definite by decision or other rule of law" before criminal liability can attach, 325 U.S. at 103; second, §242's specific intent or willfulness requirement precluded the statute's being used as "a trap for law enforcement agencies acting in good faith." Id. at 104. In other words, the specific intent required by the Act is an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them.

The above quotes by Aldermen demonstrate the intent necessary to deprive a person of rights.

eta: added ACLU link

[Callisto32]

53. Three guesses who owns that counsel...

[SteveM]

83. If ever there was a case for "context" and "intent" in law, this is it.

Dem boys & girls not only trash talk, but get footnoted for it, too.

[X_Digger]

89. You'd think a person who crafts local regulations would know enough to keep their yap shut.

Arbitrary and Capricious, anyone? *waves buh-bye*

[SteveM]

90. Product of the local schools, no?

[Statistical]

25. See #26 and tell me those are just "some regulations"

The intent of the city is to take away the right via regulatory hassle. A defacto ban. If a person can't comply with the law they can't exercise their right so the city will make it virtually impossible to comply.

Those without transportation out of the city have no right to firearm?
Those 18-20 years old have no right to firearm?

Come on. It is utter BS. Chicago will lose again. Another $3.5 million down the drain. How many cops and/or teachers would that pay for?

Nobody is interpreting the Supreme Court here is the exact rulings.
So Held: The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. - McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

So Held: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. - DC v. Heller (2008)

[KansasVoter]

27. Wow, you are so used to people just rolling over to the NRA that is is a shock when someone does not

[Statistical]

29. So you believe the poor and those under age of 21 have no constitutional rights?

Wow so "progressive of you".

[KansasVoter]

30. LOL.....gun "enthusiasts" want to pack heat, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with it.

I bet 90% of them do not know any other amendment.

[Statistical]

31. So you believe on infringing on the Constitutional rights of ALL citzens.

Wow you are worse than even Chicago. They just feel like infringing upon the young and the poor.

The right to keep and bear arms exists. Chicago will lose again. How much money will they waste. $5 million, $10 million, $25 million, $100 million before they accept that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. That right can not be infringed.

[Callisto32]

54. It's always 90% with you...

I'm starting to wonder about your capacity for independent thought.

Either that or you are just out from under your favorite bridge to stir the pot.

[cowman]

66. About

10%

[Abq_Sarah]

60. Kind of like some people here

Who want to pretend there is no 2nd amendment?

If your local government came to your house, removed your computer and informed you that you would not be allowed to even voice a complaint unless you were licensed and paid a tax for the "privilege", you'd be screaming like a scaled cat about your "rights". If they further stated that you would only be allowed to speak or write phrases, pre-approved by that same government, you'd have a meltdown and rightfully so.

You need to deal with the fact that if you wish to exercise your rights, you need to defend the right of others to do the same.

[SteveM]

85. There's ol' Number 90 again, comin' round the bend. nt

[KansasVoter]

32. And you support a group, the NRA, who does everything they can to elect right wing Conservative....

idiots based on ONE issue.

How progressive of you!!

[Statistical]

33. NRA supports politicians that support RKBA.

It isn't my fault that more Democrats don't support that Constitutional right.

The NRA works to support Democrats who support the RKBA.
The NRA works to defeat Republicans who violate the RKBA.
An equal opportunity PAC. Support or Opposition is solely based on ones views & voting record when it comes to RKBA.

NRA funding of Democratic candidates has doubled over last 8 years. More and more politicians are accepting the reality that citizens have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and violating that is neither Constitutional nor wise.

As more Democrats breaks away from the failed policies of gun control they will gain more and more support from NRA.

[KansasVoter]

34. Does not matter........

I would not support the ACLU if they would pick a right wing idiot over a great progressive over ONE issue.

The NRA would rank some of the best progressives F and spend millions to defeat them and you send them money.

How dumb is it to finance against a person you SAY you support.

Why are you on the DU?

[Statistical]

36. If someone gets an F they aren't 100% a progressive.

Support for constitutional rights is a progressive ideal.
Equal protection under the law is progressive ideal.
The right of self defense is a progressive ideal.

Just because I reject you narrow (and hypocritical view) of a "perfect progressive" doesn't mean I have no right to post on DU.
Until you buy DU from Skinner and ban me I will continue to post here.

[KansasVoter]

37. The NRA does not give a shout about progressive.........

The CARE about ONE ISSUE!!!!

And apparently you do to.

You would be willing to lose control of the house and senate over one issue!!!

I know no area where if a candidate was perfect on the liberal cause except ONE ISSUE were i would hope a right wing GOP idiot won!!!

Wow, packing heat must be more important to you than health care, gay marriage, etc.

[Statistical]

38. Wouldn't the simpler solution be that Democrats (and Republicans) stop violating the Constitution.

Keep control of Congress AND citizens don't have Constitutional rights violated.
win-win.

Many Democrats have already begun to embrace the individual right to keep and bear arms. I doubt they reached this epiphany without a little help. Maybe some are cynically doing it just to avoid a fight with NRA. The fact that NRA makes life "difficult" for those who wish to violate the 2nd has encouraged many to moderate their position. Very little gun control legislation has made it anywhere in the most recent Congress (despite overwhelming Democratic control).

NRA supports Democratic candidates. It spends millions on Democratic candidates as long as they support RKBA. It also spends millions against candidates of both parties who violate the 2nd.

[KansasVoter]

41. Wow, you are so brainwashed it is crazy........

I will go REAL SLOW for you.....

Lets say candidate Mr. Smith was pro-life....but supported EVERY OTHER LIBERAL ISSUE.....

If I was pro-choice, would I support ANY pro-choice organization that would do everything they could to elect a GOP candidate over Mr. Smith. HELL NO! One issue is not worth a right wing idiot in office

Except to YOU!!

Jesus, have someone read this and explain it to you!!!

[Statistical]

44. I never said that.

I have routinely voted for Democrats despite their less than perfect record on firearms. I never said one should take NRA (or any other special interest group) as the sole reference point when deciding a vote. However I feel the NRA has helped to moderate some of those points of view. Obama has a less than stellar record when it comes to RKBA. I voted for him despite that for other reasons. However since taking office he has become much more moderate in his language and actions.

Why did he change? He forgot about the AWB which is a plank of Democratic party? I doubt that. Maybe just maybe the well capitalized NRA ready to pounce on any gun control legislation MODERATES his position when it comes to gun control. He has other things he would rather accomplish (much easier with Democratic controlled Congress) thus the risk of a repeat of 1994 is not acceptable. While it may piss of the maybe 10% who desperately want gun control the risk vs reward isn't there.

The same thing applies to those in Congress. While they may not support RKBA in public they may also tell the speaker not to bring a vote to the floor because they will vote against it (fearing an opponent backed by NRA) will use that against them.

Now without NRA, without any consequence for gun control I feel we would have much more infringement.

[pipoman]

69. Real slow for you..

your criticism of the NRA above is that they endorse or oppose based on one issue.

In your hypothetical above, which candidate would you expect NARAL to endorse? Would you not support NARAL because they supported a pro-choice republican?

The fallacy in your entire argument in this thread is that NRA should endorse or oppose based on any other criteria BESIDE RKBA...THEY ARE A ONE ISSUE ORGANIZATION JUST LIKE NARAL and about a brazillian other advocacy/lobbying groups...wake up...this is a no brainer..

[beevul]

74. Clearly, you acknowledge there are voters who vote on this one issue.

Clearly, you acknowledge there are voters who vote on this one issue.

You know in your heart it leads to progressives being defeated.

If it doesnt, your complaining about nothing.


If it does, and you arent lobbying these progressives to leave the gun issue alone, then clearly the one issue is worth a right wing idiot in office to you as well.


Pot meet kettle.

[beevul]

75. Dupe N/T

[slackmaster]

39. Blah blah blah NRA blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

The issue is private citizens keeping guns in their own homes.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

45. Your comment does not follow logically from what I wrote

And if you bothered to look, you'd see that I post on many other subjects.

:crazy:

[SteveM]

87. That does not compute. That does not copute. That does not com...

[GreenStormCloud]

64. It is really tough for you that you can't force compliance to your view isn't it?

Just take it easy while the adults enjoy their civil rights.

[cowman]

67. And who made

you the arbiter of DU?

[oneshooter]

70. Once again"lock step or else!!!"

What civil right(besides RKBA) would you be willing to give up, if doing so insured a democratic victory?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Um-m-m...if I may...

...you seem more upset about the NRA than anything else.

My BF is pretty conservative. He supports civil rights but he's not very keen on Rev. Al Sharpton.

But he doesn't go around railing against civil rights just because Rev. Sharpton supports them.

Yes, they are a single-issue organization. So what? Lots of groups have a single focus. Now, I would never send MY money to the NRA because--as you noted they spend a preponderence to GOP candidates--but to say the any right is suddenly invalid just because a political opponent supports it doesn't seem a very well thought-out position.

Maybe that ISN'T your position but this series of sub-threads seems to say as much.

[KansasVoter]

47. No.....

I am against the support of any group that spends millions against the progressive causes.

If it was the ACLU or the NRA or PETA.

And WOULD NEVER support a group that did.

And would not respect any Dem who did.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. OK, but someone can be pro-2A and also be anti-NRA at the same time

can't they?

[KansasVoter]

51. Of Course! Not supporting the NRA is the big issue with me.......

I am pro 2A but against conceal and carry. That is my only difference with the people here. Except the NRA supporters.

[Callisto32]

55. "Hey, I'm all for your right to keep and bear arms, so long as you don't actually bear them."

[eqfan592]

57. That would seem to sum it up. (nt)

[Statistical]

58. Exactly. The oxymoron of the day.

I support the right to keep and bear arms except you can't keep them and the city has the right to make it virtually impossible for you to even keep them.

Someone Kansas reconciles "supporting the 2nd" with it is ok for Chicago to ban guns for those under 21 and to demand the poor travel 35 miles outside the city to purchase firearms, get trained, and practice with their weapons.

[cowman]

68. If your against CCW

then you NOT PRO 2nd Amend

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Except you smear people as NRA supporters, when they aren't.

You've had quite enough posts deleted for it already.

[beevul]

76. You can't do anything about the nra.

You can't do anything about the nra.

But you CAN do something about them supporting progressives.

Lobby progressives to support rkba.



Will you?


Or does all this sound and fury signify...nothing...

[beevul]

77. Dupe N/T

[oneshooter]

91. A simple question for you.

What civil right(besides RKBA) would you be willing to give up, if doing so insured a democratic victory?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[eqfan592]

49. What's funny is you rail against the NRA...

...while you give them more power than any money anybody here has ever given them. Your incoherent and irrational raving against the 2nd Amendment, firearms and firearm owners only validates what org's like the NRA say about Democrats and progressives in general.

And while your doing this, you're making it more difficult for real progressives to solve the REAL issues behind violent crime. Congrats, I'm sure you're very proud of yourself.

[KansasVoter]

52. LOL.......wow, Yes, my anti-NRA help the NRA....and your damn money in their pocket...

Helps elect idiots like Boehner.

[eqfan592]

56. I've never given the NRA a single red cent.

And even if I had, it wouldn't change the fact that I was 100% correct with my previous statement. Do you honestly think you AREN'T working to validate the "anti-2nd Amendment liberal" stereotype that those same Republicans use time and time again to beat Democrats around? Perhaps you should read my reply to you over in your NRA thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. It is within the power of Progressives, and even the DLC to reverse that.

Remove reinstatement of the AWB from the Democratic party platform. The NRA would give big up's for that right there.

[Abq_Sarah]

61. Well, whoop de freaking do

They are a group that exists to defend the 2nd amendment. Using that same logic, shouldn't NARAL be spending money to lobby for 2nd amendment rights?

[mvccd1000]

73. Re: You would be willing to lose control of the house and senate over one issue!!!

Like you were in 1994?

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Some of us see RKBA and Gay Marriage as civil rights, and will not compromise on either.

........Gay Marriage.......RKBA
Repub.........0.............X
Progressive...X.............0

I'll feel good about voting for a candidate when BOTH columns have an 'X' and not before.

[SteveM]

86. "Why are you on the DU?" Careful, now.

BTW, the gun-control movement MADE and continues to MAKE the modern NRA. You contributing to that effort?

Now is not the time for sarcasm or your prowess on the range:

Just who are your enemies? Or are you just someone trying to impress his girl/boy by taking on the Gungeon? Maybe you are testing your mettle before you "go over" to the Dark Side (I mean, who wants to be seen in the ethereal company of the usual blogosphere)?

[Glassunion]

63. Here we go again...

You cannot possibly be a "progressive" if you believe in the work of a civil rights group whose sole purpose is to protect a civil right.

A good portion of us also support the ACLU... Stoopid civil liberties... How ONE issue of us.
A good portion of us also support the NAACP... Stoopid civil rights for colored people... How ONE issue of us.
A good portion of us also support NOW... Stoopid women's equality... How ONE issue of us.
A good portion of us also support the AAPD... Stoopid disabled people... How ONE issue of us.
A good portion of us also support our local VFW... Stoopid veterans... How ONE issue of us.
etc...

How about this...
We support equal protection under the law IN EVERYTHING
We support a law abiding citizen, regardless of monetary status the right to choose IN EVERYTHING
We support a law abiding citizen the ability to remain so by giving them the services they REQUIRE to adhere to the Chicago laws

Did you even read the complaint? It kind of spells all of this out for you.

[Travis Coates]

72. Screaming antis like you

Have done far more to elect right wing pro gun conservatives than the NRA ever could

[SteveM]

84. My god, you are obsessed with the NRA. Get a grip....

If you want to do something to "weaken" the NRA, join up with us and get rid of the "gun-control issue" within the Democratic Party.

Sheesh.

[derby378]

46. The key phrase here is SOME regulation

As in forbidding citizens from wearing or carrying loaded firearms in public within city limits.

The Daley Decree is not "some" regulation. It is legislative leng t'che - death of the Second Amendment by a thousand cuts.

[benEzra]

14. Oh, get real.

Nobody is seriously trying to repeal the National Firearms Act controls on automatic weapons; heck, the NRA supports 'em. Nobody is trying to repeal the Gun Control Act's prohibition on possession or ownership by criminals and the mentally incompetent.

Opposition to asinine and irrational controls aimed squarely at harassing legitimate gun ownership by noncriminals is not the same as "wanting everybody to be able to carry automatic weapons everywhere."

BTW, lots of states and cities tried this exact same type of end-run after Roe v. Wade struck down state abortion restrictions. Do you think the courts should have just let that go, too?

[Pullo]

15. Heck, the NRA helped draft the NFA n/t

[slackmaster]

16. And the GCA, and the Brady Act.

It's a fact.

[benEzra]

20. Well, NICS.

If I'm not mistaken, the original Brady Act was a mandatory waiting period and optional background check, for handguns only; the NRA helped write the later legislation that replaced the foregoing with the mandatory point-of-sale background check for all firearm purchases from a dealer. I think that legislation may have had a different name.

[one-eyed fat man]

17. Do you ever let facts get in the way?

THIS is Mr. McDonald. He is the one who sued.



Today McDonald, a bright-eyed and trim 76-year-old grandfather, says of the leafy, house-lined street where three of his children grew up and played, the gangbangers and drug dealers have taken over. “You go out there in the morning and pick up bottles and things on the lawn,” he explains, describing events of the past summer. “They’re out there at three in the morning, in the middle of the street, drinking and smoking their stuff. They throw stuff all over your lawn, and you can’t say anything, because they might up and shoot you.” McDonald says his house has been broken into three times and his garage twice—most recently, early one morning this past August by a man McDonald recognized from around the neighborhood. Does McDonald think the robber planned to sell the stolen possessions for drugs? “Of course, of course,” he says matter-of-factly.

Otis McDonald wanted a handgun—a pistol to carry around the house and keep on his bedside table at night.

This man, whose personal security detail comes from Special Services Section of the Chicago police department with a 4.8 MILLION dollar annual budget, insisted Mr. McDonald was not worthy enough to have a handgun.



Seems like you out there in Kansas, with your monthly trap league and high class shotgun, agree and unabashedly support Mayor Daley. Must be hell a view out there in all that flatland from so high up!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

21. The McDonald case had nothing to do with either automatic weapons or carrying weapons.

It was about the right of Mr. McDonald individually (and all citizens nationally) to own and keep a handgun in his home. Period.

So Held: The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. - McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Rather than comply with that decision by the courts (after wasting $3.5 million in taxpayer money fighting and losing) the city is now going to break the spirit of the decision with regulations and procedures who cost, complexity, requirements are infringing. The purpose of the overly expensive and overly complex system is to reduce usage of that right. Nothing more.

So we will do this again (and citizens of Chicago will fork out another $3.5 million) and again and again and again and again until the city realizes they have no authority to infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Try reading the complaint and you will see there are numerous flaws in the cities response.

[cowman]

65. Show me one, just one person

on this forum that EVER advocated everyone being able to carry an automatic weapon. I'll wait.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Your bait stinks. Get some fresh stuff.

[SteveM]

88. Well, now, stink bait IS good for bottom feeders. nt

[-..__...]

82. "So the city should just lay back and let the fucking NRA do what they want?"

By your reasoning, George Wallace was a man of courage and conviction for standing up to the Supreme Court when he stood on the statehouse steps and proclaimed (9 years after Brown v. Board of Education)...

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

I suppose the NAACP and other Civil Rights supporters should have just "laid back" also?

[rrneck]

19. To be installed at the entrance of the Supreme Court Building...

for hizzonor's legal team.

[Glassunion]

62. HA!

:rofl:

Don't you think the citizens of Chicago have already forked over enough money? :sarcasm:

[Statistical]

24. A summary of some of the complaints in the petition.

1) The law required a "chicago firearms permit" for anyone to possess any firearm. The law prohibits issuing a permit to anyone under 21. Those aged 18-21 must have PERMISSION from their parents and the parent must not be prohibited from obtaining a FPD.

So three groups of people are denied equal protection under the law
a) Those under age of 21 whose parents don't consent. Parent's can infringe on the Constitutional rights of adults?
b) those under age of 21 without parents (law makes no provision for those persons without living parents)
c) those under age of 21 whose parents are felons. "Punish the child for sins of the father".
I mean WTF? What kind of dumb-ass in Chicago thinks this even comes CLOSE to equal protection under the law?

2) Section 4-144-010 of city code prohibits any person to sell, give away, or transfer any firearm for any reason. Those without firearms have no legal method to obtain firearms in the city thus those without the time & resources to travel 35 miles outside the city have no method to ever obtain a firearm.

3) Section 8-20-110 requires 1 hour of range time to obtain a FPD but section 8-20-280 prohibits "shooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged are prohibited." Thus you can only get a FPD by going to a range and ranges are prohibited.

4) Section 8-24-10 makes discharge of firearm anywhere in city illegal except for self defense. Thus even if 8-20-280 was rescinded it would be illegal to fire handgun at a range. Kinda makes it impossible to become proficient with a firearm

5) Section 8-20-040 prohibits more than 1 operable firearm in the home. Never going to survive Constitutional scrutiny.

6) Section 8-20-140 allows Police department to ban weapons for being "unsafe" solely on the determination of the Police chief. No recourse or appeal is allowed. A firearm certificate can be rescinded for "unsafe guns". So someone buys a "safe gun" spends ccouple hundred dollars on permits, licenses, registration, and training. Then Police Chief determines gun is unsafe. Owner has no recourse and now has an illegal firearm.

7) Section 8-20-140 also allows the Police to declare a weapon "unsafe" based on size or caliber. Thus a smaller caliber weapon which would be preferable for women, elderly, or those with small frames could be simply banned.

8) Laser sights are prohibited. Seems kinda stupid given laser sights can be useful for ACCURATELY aiming weapon self defense situation and thus not hitting a bystander.

9) Weapon may ONLY be possessed in ones home. Good example brought up by one of the plantiffs. If the plantiff has a valid FPD and receives a call from a relative that they think someone might be breaking in the plantiff would be prohibited from bringing his/her firearm to relatives home. Thus they would be forced to disarm before potentially encountering an intruder.

10) Weapons are prohibited in business even if the person with permit is owner of the business.

Essentially the complaint alleges the city is creating an "impermissible burden" upon the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms:
a) Persons is prohibited for possessing firearm in their garage, backyard, steps, or stairs.
b) Persons under age of 21 are prohibited from possessing firearm.
c) Persons are required to travel outside the city to get training creating an unnecessary burden.
d) Persons are prohibited from buying, selling, transferring firearms inside the city creating an unnecessary burden.
e) Persons are prohibited from having 2 or more operable firearms in residence
f) Persons are prohibited from having firearm outside residence where they may have lawful reason (such as business or relatives house)
g) Persons are prohibited from having an "unsafe gun" an arbitrary decision that is retroactive.
h) Persons are prohibited from having a laser sight to aid is accurate use of firearm.

[derby378]

59. You can't support Daley's new laws and support the Second Amendment at the same time

The two are mutually exclusive to each other. And if you don't believe me, impose similar restrictions on First Amendment rights within Chicago and watch the claws come out.