McDonald VS Chicago

[DonD]

Was surprised by the pro gun article in the local Sunday newspaper, reminding me that this case comes before the Supreme Court a week from today.

It would seem that the odds are overwhelming that Rotten Richard Daley's anti gun laws will be rejected based on Heller VS DC, since it is my understanding that the basic issue is the same, just Federal vs state.

While I am not confident it will happen, I'd love for Sotomayor to join the other 5 likely pro gun voters and have a 6-3 rejection of Daley.

Re Daley, when in the blazes are the voters going to wake up and get rid of that corrupt slimeball? Don

 

[cmort666]

The most likely outcome is that Daley will be forced to return to the status quo ante prevailing in the early '70s when I lived there.

You will still have to have an Illinois FOID.
Chicago will HAVE to accept handgun registrations.

I WISH that shall issue CCW would be mandated, but have no illusions about that happening, at least in this case.

The bottom line is that this case will not only be a crushing defeat for Daley, but for Bloomberg as well, since the Sullivan law is only marginally less onerous than Chicago's.

I predict that Daley will try to defy the ruling, creating multiple millionaires in the process.

It will be interesting to see if there are any Chicago cops who can be convinced that qualified immunity exempts you from decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[brucev]

Hum... humpty dumpty is about to have a great fall. Great!

 

[ming]

I hope the above posters are correct, but I always worry about counting the chickens too early.

 

[cmort666]

I hope the above posters are correct, but I always worry about counting the chickens too early.

Those curs have been whining about "reasonable gun control" for fifty years. Watch them squeal when they actually get it.

 

[DonD]

The bottom line is that this case will not only be a crushing defeat for Daley, but for Bloomberg as well, since the Sullivan law is only marginally less onerous than Chicago's.

In many ways Bloomberg is far worse than Daley, hard to believe but slimeball Bloomie puts many millions of his own money into trying to defeat 2nd Amendment rights. What a sad excuse for a government excecutive. Don

 

[cmort666]

In many ways Bloomberg is far worse than Daley, hard to believe but slimeball Bloomie puts many millions of his own money into trying to defeat 2nd Amendment rights. What a sad excuse for a government excecutive. Don

Daley just uses the taxpayers' money.

Thank goodness that Chicago's law department ride to work on the short bus. A dead possum has more legal acumen.

 

[JcMack]

It irritates me to no end that the Daley anti gun paranoia even affects me here in Indiana. I live about 3 miles from the Illinois line. If I'm carrying a gun and wind up in Illinois I risk becoming a felon. The fact is 20 years ago open carry was fairly common here. In that 20 yrs. so many Illinoisans have moved this area in search of lower housing costs and taxes it has really screwed the economy here. Illinois people mainly migrate here from the areas directly adjacent to my state. These are Chicago suburbs populated by liberal gun haters. Needless to say open carry is a thing of the past here.

 

[dd698]

I hope that good old [VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN] Daley takes his lumps on this one.For too many years he has been able to win relection by garnering the cemetary vote.

 

[walter o]

open carry

Hay JC MACK open carry is legal in the great state of INDIANA .Although some law enforcememt officers don't think so . Our permits are for (to carry permits)conceiled or open.

 

[JcMack]

Hay JC MACK open carry is legal in the great state of INDIANA .Although some law enforcememt officers don't think so . Our permits are for (to carry permits)conceiled or open.

Hello again Walter,

If I thought I could get away it: I'd open carry a sharp revolver. Anymore all that would do is make me a target for our new neighbors.

How are you? JIM

 

[Vegetaman]

Well, let me just say I have read some pretty terrible anti-gun articles in the past few days, and it was painful to see how wrong some people's opinions are. How in the world can these people claim to be so strongly for the 1st amendment, then want to shoot a bunch of proverbial holes through the 2nd?

I mean, it would seem to me that if the federal government can't strip your rights under the 2nd amendment, that the state and local governments shouldn't be able to, either...

 

[cp1969]

I mean, it would seem to me that if the federal government can't strip your rights under the 2nd amendment, that the state and local governments shouldn't be able to, either...

Exactly. It puzzles me as to why we have to have yet another trial to determine citizen rights when the previous case (Washington D.C.) affirmed that right for residents of D.C.

Aren't D.C. residents and Chicago residents both U.S. residents? Why should one group be treated differently than the other? I thought there was also something in the Constitution about citizens being treated equally under the law?

But I guess it goes back to enriching those in the legal community, as it always does. Why settle something with one trial when you can have fifty or a hundred or a thousand to do the same thing? $$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[JcMack]

Keep in mind: It works both ways. States rights have been a bone of contention forever. See: The War of the Northern Aggression. Slavery was not the primary issue. The issues then involved the majority states implementing law that effected all including the minority states. What the liberals want in the worst way, is to create a giant "America" with no states .See: pending Heath Care legislation. That way any new legislation would effect all, with no exceptions. See: Communism/Socialism. Gun laws in the new America could be effected, and enacted with one sweeping passage of anti-gun law.

 

[DonD]

What the liberals want in the worst way, is to create a giant "America" with no states .See: pending Heath Care legislation. That way any new legislation would effect all, with no exceptions. See: Communism/Socialism. Gun laws in the new America could be effected, and enacted with one sweeping passage of anti-gun law.

You're close, what the liberals really want is one world government no matter how ridiculous that concept is. For example, does the average citizen in the US have ANYTHING in common with the people of Sudan other than being human beings? The UN is a great example of the continued failure of such concepts. That worthless body can't unify on sanctions against Iran or N. Korea yet it espouses the elimination of nuclear weapons. How would that be enforced? What a farce. Liberals see the world as they would like it to be not in any way related to what it really is. Don

 

[JcMack]

I used to hear the One World Order scenario espoused by extreme rightest guys at all the gunshows. I used to take it with a grain of salt. Now 20 yrs. later all the decent jobs are gone and you can't buy much made in this country. If we don't wake up and turn over a new leaf, we won't recognize the USA in a few years. I'm glad I'm old.

 

[oldman45]

I used to hear the One World Order scenario espoused by extreme rightest guys at all the gunshows. I used to take it with a grain of salt. Now 20 yrs. later all the decent jobs are gone and you can't buy much made in this country. If we don't wake up and turn over a new leaf, we won't recognize the USA in a few years. I'm glad I'm old.

What we are seeing now is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Already in the works is a call for a national drivers license and a national ID.

There is blame to go across both parties but one has to look at what is being done in the current Adminsitration.
1. The Government is now in the Automotive Industry.
2. The Government is now in the Banking Business
3. The Government is now in the Mortgage Business.
4. The Government is now in the Health Care Business.

and the list goes on. In a few short months, the Government will take over all the country in one way or another. Socialism is not long off.

McDonald vs Chicago will be a moot point because the Government will do away with any opposition, be it industry or political.

Now think about this. If the High Court rules in favor of the Second Amendment, we can own firearms. However the Government can now say we do not have the right to own ammo for the firearms we have. Some areas are already considering microstamping of ammo. Some in Congress are asking for ammo to be serialized. Others in Congress are asking for a high tax on ammo. Without the ammo, we own a lot of paper weights.

Do not think it cannot happen. Many of the things we see happening today would have been considered impossible 20 years ago.

Try learning how the Administration decided which auto dealerships would have to shut down. It is public record. Yet if they would put the foreign autos on a level playing field with the US, then the US market would not be hurting.

Look at the way Congress is handling many of the jobs in the nation.

Look for firearm freedoms to be changed. Even in conservative Louisiana, a person now can only fire weapons on property they own, have written permission to do such by the owner or be at a public range. Just two yrs ago, a person could go to many open lands and practice.

A little off the topic but sure is close kin.

 

[DonD]

I Now 20 yrs. later all the decent jobs are gone and you can't buy much made in this country. If we don't wake up and turn over a new leaf, we won't recognize the USA in a few years. I'm glad I'm old.

One of the many things the Obama administration is doing that I just can't fathom is that we're drowning in unemployment yet we still keep issuing preferential visas so that foreigners can come here for jobs, a significant number of them in IT roles. I believe that most if not all of those jobs can be filled by US citizens. That's just one example.

If we dumped a million or two illegals back to their homeland, there WOULD be more jobs available. Perhaps not high paying jobs but I would be happy to pay $5 more per night for a hotel room or 50 cents more for a head of lettuce if that money went to pay a higher wage needed to attract a needy US citizen. Don