Supreme Court: Mcdonald vs City of Chicago

[MikeN]

Some good stuff... it begins

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

 

[country_boy]

Is there a time frame for their decision? Ive been worried ever since tuesday!

 

[jgedmond]

Is there a time frame for their decision? Ive been worried ever since tuesday!

I think that a decision is expected in June. From what I read, odds are that gun rights will be significantly improved in places like Chicago by the same 5-4 majority that ruled in the Heller case. Outright gun banning will likely go away, but what other "reasonable" restrictions states and municipalities can impose will be decided by future court cases. Things like restrictions on purchases per month, keeping guns locked up, etc. will be decided as other laws are challenged. "Shall not infringe" is apparently not clear enough to the average politician or federal judge.

 

[Texan2]

I think that a decision is expected in June.

thats what i heard too...

 

[truckready]

MANY big issues going on right now. We need to stay alert and proactive within our communities.

 

[APatriot]

Lmao....

Some good stuff... it begins

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

at the idiot in the brief that argued the 2A was ONLY protection against the Federal gov't disarming the militia...what an idiot...the progressive anti-gun moron needs to read the 2A...."people"?....

 

[Texan2]

at the idiot in the brief that argued the 2A was ONLY protection against the Federal gov't disarming the militia...what an idiot...the progressive anti-gun moron needs to read the 2A...."people"?....

They like to use the term militia too, yet they dont seem to know what that means either: : "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"

 

[deputy]

at the idiot in the brief that argued the 2A was ONLY protection against the Federal gov't disarming the militia...what an idiot...the progressive anti-gun moron needs to read the 2A...."people"?....

This is indeed their argument. As i understand history, the orginal Bill of Rights was initially intended as protection against the Federal Govt. Over the years, mostly thru the 14th Amendment and the "due process" clause involving SCOTUS decisions, many parts of the Bill of Rights such as the 1A, 4A, 5, 6, 7, and 8th Amendments were incorporated into the States. The 2A has not to my knowledge been "incorporated" to the States yet by the "due process" clause.

The real argument here will most likely be around the 14A.

 

[APatriot]

This is indeed their argument. As i understand history, the orginal Bill of Rights was initially intended as protection against the Federal Govt. Over the years, mostly thru the 14th Amendment and the "due process" clause involving SCOTUS decisions, many parts of the Bill of Rights such as the 1A, 4A, 5, 6, 7, and 8th Amendments were incorporated into the States. The 2A has not to my knowledge been "incorporated" to the States yet by the "due process" clause.

The real argument here will most likely be around the 14A.

All is true. I would argue because the 2A stands alone.

 

[willygene]

stands alone and as it states "Shall Not Be Infringed upon" what part of that is hard to understand for them.