McDonald vs. Chicago, What then?

[oldRoger]

SCOTUS is expected to find in favor of McDonald in the next major shoe to fall from the Heller decision.
Mayor Daley just had a sort of comic but sad news conference which may be found by searching: chicago tribune + clout street + daley+ city ready to act
The conference is becoming famous for other reasons as well.
A couple of quotes:
Whatever the details of the court's ruling will be, we will always find new ways to keep guns off our streets," he said.
Daley offered no specifics on what he will propose. But he talked about the possibility of ballistics tests for registered guns, so police can track them if they're used in crimes.
The mayor mentioned the possibility of some kind of registry to let police know how many guns and what types are in each house, but said nothing has been finalized.
The point is that the anti-gun, anti-self defense types whose natural breeding ground is the big city, will not give up just because SCOTUS affirms our rights. This will have to be fought in the courts over and over.
The only alternative to the courts is the individual state legislatures preempting this sort of legislation from the cities.
Make certain who you are voting for in state government this fall! Support your state organization, Florida is fortunate to have Marion Hammer and the “Unified Sportsman of Florida”.

 

[oldman45]

All you said was correct. However you are making the assumption that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the gun owner.

If must be remembered that Judges cannot agree on the law as it is now. There have been many 5-4 decisions. Now the deck is being stacked from the liberal side by the current administration. His latest appointment is the first of two he will be making shortly. What a nominee says from the standpoint of wanting the job is far different from the way they rule once on the Bench.

Few understand how important those placed on the Bench now will effect us all. It is possible the nominee will serve on the Bench for the next 30 years. Another like minded appointee can shift the powers of the Court.

 

[DonD]

I think McDonald vs Chicago will be another 5-4 in favor, the same people who voted for Heller will vote for McDonald. Sotomayor replaced a liberal so nothing has changed.

Daley is a consummate a-- and if McDonald goes our way, his wackjob efforts at circumventing it will quickly go down in flames in court.

All I've heard from people in the Chicago area is that this MORON won't be running for reelection and I doubt that the Democratic machine can find another mobster with the political finesse of Daley. Don

 

[JWiley]

The question presented to the Court on March 2nd was:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

The 2nd WILL be incorporated against the States. The only question is how. If by the 'Due Process Clause' we will see a mess akin to Heller. (Due to the Majorities' 'reasonable restrictions' BS.') BTW: the individual right was upheld 9-0 in Heller, with the Dissents' only quibling on how far the 2nd could be infringed.

If by the 14th's 'Privileges or Immunities Clause' the process should be much simpler: One State=One suit to bring them into complyance with the 2nd and in most cases the State Constitutions. (VT, AK and AZ are already there.)

The descision should be released next month (June) and probably the very last day of the session.

 

[oldRoger]

The Daley press conference was in my opinion a signal. SCOTUS is not leak proof, and Daley has friends in very high places. I think he has advance word that he will lose this one.
I think two reasonable assumptions can be made:
One; SCOTUS will find for McDonald, (see J Wiley above)
Two; They will find on narrow, due process grounds, the reasonable restrictions wording may be tightened a bit but that is all.

Since this ruling will expand Heller to the rest of us, we are being told by Daley how it is going to go. Daley is but one example of this kind of thinking. Almost every big city mayor and some governors will rush to put in place onerous “reasonable” restrictions. The result of this in DC is that for practical purposes residents there are not much, if any, better off than they were before Heller.

Further fighting all of this step by step through the federal court system will take a very long time.

On the other hand states can, and some have, take this out of the mayors’ hands. There are four large cities in Florida where the mayors would love to be putting in place “reasonable” restrictions which would effectively prevent me from carrying there, too bad!

The majority of people in most states believe in the right to self defense which gave birth to the 2nd amendment, it’s time to make your voice heard.

 

[walter o]

I think it's going to be a long hard fight. Illinois is run by the Chicago machine 'so the state legislature Will not go against the machine .Also if Daily does not run look for Rhom Emanual the presidents right hand man to run for mayor.They may lose this Battle but will not give up the fight and do as the D.C.district politicians have done and are doing to keep citizens from owning firearms

 

[oldman45]

I think it's going to be a long hard fight. Illinois is run by the Chicago machine 'so the state legislature Will not go against the machine .Also if Daily does not run look for Rhom Emanual the presidents right hand man to run for mayor.They may lose this Battle but will not give up the fight and do as the D.C.district politicians have done and are doing to keep citizens from owning firearms

Exactly right. Has the decisions by the Supreme Court changed things in DC? Not a bit. Try getting stopped there with a firearm in your vehicle? There are local ways to get around virtually any decision they make.

There is a dumb mayor in Shreveport, LA. He signed on with Blooming idiot Bloomburg's stupid group. An officer stopped one of the local citizens and relieved him of his gun during questioning. The citizen complained to the mayor. After the uproar, the mayor went on the media saying the citizen loses ALL rights when detained by an officer. He said the citizen no longer has the right to own or carry a gun until the officer completes his work or until the court dismisses the case. Is this against state law? I would say so. Is it happening in the Shreveport area? Yes. But who would spend the time and money to carry it to court for a ruling?

No matter what the ruling, the powers to be will still call the shots.

Also note that last week, Bloomberg and his Police Chief declared NYC the safest large city in the US. Must be the strict gun control.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Anyone who thinks that the issues will be resolved by any court case will be disappointed. This struggle will never be over. The anti-gun crowd will never stop.

The "reasonable restrictions" language in the Heller decision simply set the stage for the next decade or two. We will see constant attempts to regulate, tax, and bureacratically harass firearms ownership out of existence (as a practical matter for the majority of citizens).

It can be interesting to follow the high-profile court cases, and we should stay well informed. But the direction of gun control efforts is all that will change, now that legislative bans have been shown to be unconstitutional. The new direction will be "reasonable restrictions", and the battle will continue indefinitely.

 

[oldRoger]

I agree with most above. The NRA will continue to fight this battle nationally and I will continue to support them.

My real point here is that we should not depend upon this to be settled in favor of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms at a national level. We are far more likely to lose at the national level than win.

To echo Ray; the battle will be over “reasonable restrictions” and it will be fought at the state and local level. I doubt that many battles will be won in the bigger cities.

However, most states have a majority in favor of these rights and with the organization and the will can preempt the cities.
I am not altogether convinced that Illinois is hopeless, NY & CA, perhaps. Chicago politicians have nowhere as much clout statewide as they did when I lived there.
Look at Michigan, Detroit & burbs used to dictate politics in MI, now Detroit is a ghost town. Cities are shrinking nation-wide and so is their political influence.
The outsize influence that cities have is due to organization, the big city representatives to state government vote as a block. This is a game we can play also. The recent GA controversy (see topic) is in my view a good example of citizens influencing the state government. I didn’t see much mention of the mayor of Atlanta dictating terms.

In general the mayors in Florida save their efforts for getting more money out of state government and only pay lip service to disarming us, at least temporarily they have lost that battle..

 

[bk43]

Cities are shrinking nation-wide and so is their political influence.

Another thing drying up is the money. In fact, some are already broke. Extended fruitless court battles over gun control will soon be a luxury they can't afford. Or at least one could hope.

Bob

 

[Tom Servo]

Extended fruitless court battles over gun control will soon be a luxury they can't afford. Or at least one could hope.

I think you're on to something there. After Heller, Morton Grove quietly rescinded their handgun ban. The fear of expensive, time-consuming litigation was cited as the main reason.

As oldRoger mentioned, it will likely be a somewhat narrow ruling. By simply incorporating at all, they're overturning quite a bit of precedent. From a logistical standpoint, it's not a good idea for them to return a wide-ranging decision that could result in a flood of lawsuits--some of which they'll have to hear in subsequent sessions.

Of course, I could be wrong. They could still decide (and I'm holding out a sliver of hope) that the whole school of selective incorporation is broken, and that the Privileges or Immunities clause means what it says.

 

[IndianaDave]

Slightly off-topic from Chicago tribune. One less piece of garbage:

"80-year-old homeowner fatally shoots burglar
May 26, 2010 8:48 AM
An 80-year-old man shot and killed an armed man who broke into his East Garfield Park home this morning, police said.
The intruder, who police believe had a gun, broke into the family two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue about 5:20 a.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer John Mirabelli.
The resident was awakened by the break-in and confronted the burglar, Mirabelli said. The homeowner shot the intruder, who was dead on the scene, police said. The intruder was in his 30s, Mirabelli said.
The homeowner and his wife, also in her 80s, were believed to have been unharmed.
A weapon was found at the scene, Mirabelli said.
Harrison Area detectives were interviewing the homeowner. "

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Another thing drying up is the money. In fact, some are already broke. Extended fruitless court battles over gun control will soon be a luxury they can't afford. Or at least one could hope.

Bob

Unfortunately, any government entity engaged in litigation is doing so with public funds. So, in the case of a city being sued by residents of that city, the residents are paying all of their own costs while also participating in the costs incurred by the city. Even if the city loses, and is ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs, it is still taxpayer dollars being used.

Now, if we could find a way to make the political figures involved to reach into their own pockets, that might change the equation a bit.

As long as politicians can pursue their personal agendas using other peoples' money things will continue to be difficult for the rest of us.

 

[walnutred]

We need to figure out how to create a pro American version of the ACLU. From my understanding they get most of their funding for their frivolous law suits directly from the Feds (indirectly from us). There should be a way for those actually interested in preserving the Constitution to do the same thing.

 

[oldman45]

We need to figure out how to create a pro American version of the ACLU. From my understanding they get most of their funding for their frivolous law suits directly from the Feds (indirectly from us). There should be a way for those actually interested in preserving the Constitution to do the same thing.

Not so. Here is a paste from Wikopedia

Funding
The ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources. For example, in 2004, the ACLU and its affiliate, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation reported revenues totaling $85,559,887. Of that total, 87% was from donations and dues from the public, 1.8% from program services, including awards of legal fees, royalty income, and literature sales, and the remainder from investment income and income from sale of assets. The distribution and amount of funding for state affiliates varies from state to state. For example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year. Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources. Its expenses in the same period were $800,000, of which 12% went to administration and management. Smaller affiliates with fewer resources, such as that in Nebraska, receive subsidies from the national ACLU.[27]

 

[bk43]

From my understanding they get most of their funding for their frivolous law suits directly from the Feds (indirectly from us).

As was posted, that's a small part but they are still supported by the taxpayer. They are a 501c3 charity so like a church they pay no taxes. Contributions are also deductable by donors and members.

Try deducting your NRA contributions sometime and see how that goes.

Bob

 

[DonD]

Of course, the ACLU NEVER brings suit in favor of the 2nd Amendment issues but happily defends the worst serial murderer, child molester, or flag burner.

The 2nd Amendment is the only one they refuse to support. Pathetic
t---s. Don

 

[oldman45]

Simply put, the ACLU is a communist ran group. The founder was a communist, the leaders are communist and for a long time, their offices in various locations were owned by communists.

We all know how those in the communist party feel about the US, the Second Amendment and wealth distribution. In fact I think the current bunch in power have a similar belief. Mr Obama wants wealth distribution, higher taxes on the working citizen to support the less fortunate and he is against the Second. Not saying he is or is not but his beliefs run along the same lines as the ACLU.

 

[Niner19]

Well...it is June the decision should be coming withing the next 3 weeks....

 

[DonD]

Well...it is June the decision should be coming withing the next 3 weeks....

I really don't think I'm being too optimistic but I'm hoping the ruling will be a very bad day for Richardhead Daley. Don