PDA

View Full Version : McDonald: Chicago's brief has been posted


hoffmang
12-30-2009, 4:03 PM
Chicago's brief in McDonald v. Chicago has been posted: http://bit.ly/7np4rY, Direct PDF here: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/08-1521-bs.pdf

I'll have thoughts later tonight.

-Gene

PatriotnMore
12-30-2009, 4:17 PM
Can't wait to hear your comments. The below is not what I heard SCOTUS to intend in its ruling, it was my understanding it was an affirmation of the individual(s) right to bear arm(s), not the militia?

Although a right to firearms
for personal use was recognized in a variety of
sources of law that pre-existed the Constitution,
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008),
makes clear that it was not included in the Bill of
Rights for its own sake or to protect it against the
political process; rather, it was codified to protect the
militia by eliminating the threat that the federal
government would take away the arms necessary for
militia service.

The scope of the Second Amendment right—
weapons in common use—also reflects its purpose of
protecting the militia, rather than an individual right
related to self-defense, since the Second Amendment
protects weapons regardless of whether they are
useful for self-defense.

anthonyca
12-30-2009, 4:18 PM
Chicago's brief in McDonald v. Chicago has been posted: http://bit.ly/7np4rY, Direct PDF here: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/08-1521-bs.pdf

I'll have thoughts later tonight.

-Gene

Now I have to tag this and will be waiting with much anticipation.

PatriotnMore
12-30-2009, 4:27 PM
What basis does this argument have in our court system at all, let alone a SCOTUS decision? We are not arguing for world rights, or for any other country. We are insisting that our rights, as stated in our Constitution, are upheld in the highest court.

4. Finally, the treatment of firearms rights in other
countries—especially countries that share our Anglo-
American heritage—supports the conclusion that the
Second Amendment right is not implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The legal systems of
England, Canada, and Australia each have their
roots in the same English law as does this country,
and each should be seen as a country in which
“ordered liberty” is valued. Yet each of them imposes
stringent regulations on firearms that would be
impermissible or at least suspect under Second
Amendment standards.

This brief makes my blood boil.

Fjold
12-30-2009, 4:28 PM
106 pages of crap. Their opening statement is:

In 1982, Chicago enacted a handgun ban, along
with other firearms regulations, because “the convenient
availability of firearms and ammunition has
increased firearm related deaths and injuries” and
handguns “play a major role in the commission of
homicide, aggravated assaults and armed robbery.”
Chicago City Council, Journal of Proceedings, Mar.
19, 1982, at 10049. Under Chicago’s ordinance, “[n]o
person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such
person is the holder of a valid registration certificate
for such firearm,” and no person may possess “any
firearm which is unregisterable.” Municipal Code of
Chicago, Ill. § 8-20-040(a) (2009).

My question would be since they have banned handguns since 1982 how well has that worked to lower the murder rate in Chicago?

aileron
12-30-2009, 4:31 PM
4. Finally, the treatment of firearms rights in other
countries—especially countries that share our Anglo-
American heritage—supports the conclusion that the
Second Amendment right is not implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The legal systems of
England, Canada, and Australia each have their
roots in the same English law as does this country,
and each should be seen as a country in which
“ordered liberty” is valued. Yet each of them imposes
stringent regulations on firearms that would be
impermissible or at least suspect under Second
Amendment standards.

This brief makes my blood boil.

hmmm. works for me... I'd say to Chicago... your right, their laws are suspect under the 2nd amd.

Carlosa
12-30-2009, 4:55 PM
Tag

1BigPea
12-30-2009, 5:01 PM
[QUOTE=My question would be since they have banned handguns since 1982 how well has that worked to lower the murder rate in Chicago?[/QUOTE]



^
Exactly.

Tagged. Looking foward to Gene's thoughts...

Shane916
12-30-2009, 5:08 PM
My question would be since they have banned handguns since 1982 how well has that worked to lower the murder rate in Chicago?

Over 2 times the national average for both murder and robbery. :D

If they're goal was to increase violence, then I'd say it has been a great success.

hollabillz
12-30-2009, 5:40 PM
Can't wait to hear your comments. The below is not what I heard SCOTUS to intend in its ruling, it was my understanding it was an affirmation of the individual(s) right to bear arm(s), not the militia?

Although a right to firearms
for personal use was recognized in a variety of
sources of law that pre-existed the Constitution,
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008),
makes clear that it was not included in the Bill of
Rights for its own sake or to protect it against the
political process; rather, it was codified to protect the
militia by eliminating the threat that the federal
government would take away the arms necessary for
militia service.

The scope of the Second Amendment right—
weapons in common use—also reflects its purpose of
protecting the militia, rather than an individual right
related to self-defense, since the Second Amendment
protects weapons regardless of whether they are
useful for self-defense.

Agreed, they're stating the same deluded opinion. They might as well hyperventilate and say MILITIA over and over. Even when you take the word militia out of context as they have, the militia was most definitely concerned about defense of themselves and others. But that's a red herring. 2A is an individual right.

From the majority opinion in Heller...


The Second Amendment protects an individual 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.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

putput
12-30-2009, 5:53 PM
Ha ha ha... These guys are toast. So much to refute. I'll start with:

"That history shows no general public understanding
or congressional intent that the Privileges
or Immunities Clause was meant to impose the Bill of
Rights on the States."

Um, that's exactly what it was supposed to do since the government of the day (much like these guys) had forgotten that the STATES asked for the bill of rights. At that time they didn't think it would need a 14a since the states would never not support those ammendments (even if later they did).

Shotgun Man
12-30-2009, 6:02 PM
I guess if you had to make an argument against 2A incorporation that is the argument you'd make.

The problem is, you can't make the argument without sounding like a loon.

timdps
12-30-2009, 6:23 PM
Although a right to firearms
for personal use was recognized in a variety of
sources of law that pre-existed the Constitution,
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008),
makes clear that it was not included in the Bill of
Rights for its own sake or to protect it against the
political process; rather, it was codified to protect the
militia by eliminating the threat that the federal
government would take away the arms necessary for
militia service.

LOL! Amazing... Wonder who came up with that bit of sillyness.

Tim

gcrtkd
12-30-2009, 6:25 PM
Have read ~23 pages thus far and I agree with all of the comments posted before this. Reading this really stretches the limits of credulity. It gives me very much a "...the system worked" and "Republican credits will be fine" vibe. It is full of numerous half truths, some flat out lies, and a handful of utterly confusing misinterpretations of precedent (Heller decided that the 2A recognizes a militia right, not an individual right?!? There was no intention of putting the 2A beyond the reach of the political process??? Ummm, that's actually EXACTLY what it says, and EXACTLY why it was put into the constitution... so that it could not be legislated away). They certainly seem eager to keep gang members from getting guns, with which they could ply their trade on the streets. Unfortunately, 3 decades of firearms restrictions don't seem to have accomplished this goal. It would be interesting in the reply brief to see the parole rate of validated gang members in Chi-town to see just how much they really don't want gang-bangers (who have already been arrested, mind you) on the streets. Oh well, maybe if they keep the restrictions THIS year will be the year that they work... or maybe the year after that... or the one after that...

The other thing that confuses me is how 38 states can sign onto an amicus brief in the case, stating that the 2A should be incorporated against them, the very states that Chicago is talking about, but around p. 20/21 Chicago is claiming that it shouldn't be. They don't seem to have much of a reason other than "Well, because there are so many of these laws that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right, and it would be really expensive to un-f*&k them all, we should just keep them." (No 2A? Keep slaves? No freedom of speech? Beer, in a bottle? BRILLIANT!)

I've got a fever and the only prescription is incorporation!

-gcrtkd

Al Norris
12-30-2009, 6:43 PM
From the last part of the "Summary."
But Congress was concerned with discriminatory measures taken against freedmen, which it addressed by adopting a non-discrimination principle in the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, the manner in which firearms were regulated during the period shows public acceptance of state regulation, including outright bans, so long as it was not done in a discriminatory manner.

Does Chicago actually think that the Colfax Massacre was a good thing? That Cruikshank is good law?

I'm up to about pg. 60 and I keep shaking my head... Gura is going to tear them apart with his reply brief.

trashman
12-30-2009, 7:11 PM
Yep - lotta handwaving about the dangers of overturning Slaughter-House...

--Neill

Maestro Pistolero
12-30-2009, 7:22 PM
The scope of the Second Amendment right—
weapons in common use—also reflects its purpose of
protecting the militia, rather than an individual right
related to self-defense, since the Second Amendment
protects weapons regardless of whether they are
useful for self-defense.

Well, then, military small arms ought to be especially protected.

lazyworm
12-30-2009, 7:45 PM
I'm liking it so far. The more they screw up their brief, the bigger our win. :)

taloft
12-30-2009, 7:56 PM
Tagged.

yellowfin
12-30-2009, 8:05 PM
The best thing is we can cite this brief's arguments when they lose and use it to gut their arguments in all followup cases. The more they talk the more they waste all their ammo and dig themselves deeper. I love it!

PatriotnMore
12-30-2009, 8:10 PM
I hope you're right.
Can't wait to hear from Gene on this brief.


The best thing is we can cite this brief's arguments when they lose and use it to gut their arguments in all followup cases. The more they talk the more they waste all their ammo and dig themselves deeper. I love it!

383green
12-30-2009, 8:17 PM
I'm imagining myself in the shoes of a Supreme Court Justice, and then further imagining how I might react when the defendant in the case I'm deciding presents me with a brief which claims that I wrote the exact opposite of what I actually wrote in my previous ruling on the subject, and then claims that I must find in their benefit as a result.

Thank you, Chicago! :thumbsup:

bridgeport
12-30-2009, 8:22 PM
Yep, that is what the Revolution was fought for. So we could defer to British, Canadian, and Australian law. Unbelievable.

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 8:23 PM
Over 2 times the national average for both murder and robbery. :D

If they're goal was to increase violence, then I'd say it has been a great success.

Shhhhh!.... that makes sense

pullnshoot25
12-30-2009, 8:27 PM
Damn, I guess all the food I ate today is going to be hurled....

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 8:28 PM
yea, i just re read the 2nd amendment.... it says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


silly founding fathers, never writing what they really meant

timdps
12-30-2009, 8:42 PM
1. To be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,”
right must be “implicit”—that is, essential—to the
very “concept” of ordered liberty. As the Court has
explained, that means that “neither liberty nor
justice would exist if [the right] were sacrificed.”

Bingo, we have a winner! Could not have said it better myself.

I can just imagine Mr. Gura drooling over this stuff... :D

tim

1JimMarch
12-30-2009, 8:56 PM
I haven't read it all, just skipped ahead to the section on incorporation via P&I.

Ye GODS these guys are crazy.

They're citing Cruikshank as authority...and ADAMSON for God's sake. Adamson has been overturned. Cruikshank was torn up one side and down the other in Heller.

Holy crap...they're frackin' nuts.

Meplat
12-30-2009, 9:00 PM
Well, then, military small arms ought to be especially protected.

That has been my position for years!:rolleyes:

Digital_Boy
12-30-2009, 9:11 PM
I have only three words to describe the amount of their drivel that I was able to stomach:

looney tunes logic.

RP1911
12-30-2009, 9:27 PM
I have this mental picture of "The Right People" sipping 30 yr old scotch right about now.

Meplat
12-30-2009, 9:34 PM
“[f]ederalism is an older and
more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry
any particular kind of weapon.”????????

Is it just my ignorance or are they several hundred years upside down here?

Electricboy
12-30-2009, 10:19 PM
"Criminal street gangs with the right to carry guns
could use those guns to increase fear in their
communities and violence used to control the drug
trade that is their lifeblood."

page 41. these guys are wacky :TFH::sarcasm:

hardrivr
12-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Tagged

Beatone
12-30-2009, 10:24 PM
Tagged

cbn620
12-30-2009, 10:28 PM
Well, this is my first impression after a quick skim. I will be reading it in detail over the next couple days, but my thoughts thus far:

Beating the same tired arguments like a dead horse has two possible outcomes for our opponents, I am assuming. One, and this is to our favor, they get shown their arguments have been defeated even as lately as Heller. Two, and this is to their favor, people are going to get caught up in their absolutely ridiculous and highly complex insane ramblings and completely ignore/forget the precedent established. I can see this text has that sort of effect when read: "Forget about what was just argued, forget about the conclusions we just came to: LOOK. Listen to this stuff I've been saying for years that has been proven wrong time and time again. I've just dressed it up to sound incredibly pretentious as if new information has been added to my argument."

I guess the issue is, yet again, whether the deciding parties wish to be intellectually honest.

Meplat
12-30-2009, 10:37 PM
Agreed! This reads more like an anti-gun press release than a studied legale argument. The really hilarious part is there only coherent argument that I can so far sift out of this crap is STATES RIGHTS, a concept these libs kicked to the curb over 100 years ago.:D



Well, this is my first impression after a quick skim. I will be reading it in detail over the next couple days, but my thoughts thus far:

Beating the same tired arguments like a dead horse has two possible outcomes for our opponents, I am assuming. One, and this is to our favor, they get shown their arguments have been defeated even as lately as Heller. Two, and this is to their favor, people are going to get caught up in their absolutely ridiculous and highly complex insane ramblings and completely ignore/forget the precedent established. I can see this text has that sort of effect when read: "Forget about what was just argued, forget about the conclusions we just came to: LOOK. Listen to this stuff I've been saying for years that has been proven wrong time and time again. I've just dressed it up to sound incredibly pretentious as if new information has been added to my argument."

I guess the issue is, yet again, whether the deciding parties wish to be intellectually honest.

hoffmang
12-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Let me start with: Heh.

Ok, some of the amusing parts (please note my sarcasm at many places):

Trotting out collective rights again? To this court that just ruled no on that. Skillful!

Chicago says:First, because conditions vary from one place to another, residents in different locales, facing widely different conditions and social problems, should be able to address them with widely varying solutions.
Yep. Bill Cruikshank and Christopher Columbus Nash thought that local "social requirements" in Grant Parish Louisiana meant that armed black men should be disarmed and shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre) - two black men to one bullet even. There's a widely varying solutions for you.

"Handguns are used to kill in the United States more than all other weapons—firearms and otherwise—combined." How can handguns be more than long guns plus handguns plus knives plus blunt instruments plus hands?

Does Chicago get to cite not yet filled Amici for their side?

Chicago argues that because the SCOTUS majority said handguns are protected, handguns therefor can not support ordered liberty??

Chicago understands the implication that carry licensing will come under 2A purview.

Chicago notes that California's microstamping requirement (and thus the roster) are subject to attack under the 2A.

Say it isn't so! :42: Costly Second Amendment challenges to arms regulations would no doubt force state and local governments to consider repealing them (and refrain from enacting new ones), even when, in their judgment, they could substantially contribute, under local conditions, to reducing violence, injury, and death.

Chicago at least understand that the arms protected are the ones in common use.

Chicago is cute in trying to show how few states strike down gun laws. Of course that's because the laws don't get passed in the first place. It then uses its own state -whose right has been gutted since it says "subject to the police power" - as an example. Hey! Don't look over here!

Chicago really will not like the actual counts of how far from "routinely" sates ban common weapons - especially in those states have an enforced RKBA…

Chicago utterly skips the understanding of the 2A in the era of the adoption of the Fourteenth. I do love how they otherwise cite the preamble of the Second Amendment to support that there is no right to self defense but yet skip the whole "security of a free state" part…

Chicago claims machine guns are useful for self defense. I can't wait to use that against them in the distant future.

Interesting that Chicago realizes the real danger to cities and states of the Supreme Court enforcing a right to self defense. They intentionally pick on NRA's brief to avoid the fact that the unenumerated right to self defense is front and center in the McDonald brief.

I love how every other dangerous right isn't dangerous but the 2A is. The 1A gets people killed all the time - just ask Yale University Press why they chickened out (http://www.slate.com/id/2225504/) of publishing the Mohamed cartoons. Ignoring the 4A would solve a whole lot more violent crimes before the criminal could strike again.

on P or I:

1. Notice they never actually explain why Slaughterhouse was correctly decided. just that it should be relied upon.

2. The bring out the parade of horribles about non-citizens (i.e. legal aliens and corporations.) Anyone else amused that Chicago is supporting the first eight amendment rights being possessed by Corporations?

3. Note in footnote 23 that Chicago uses the GOA (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-tsac-gunownersofamerica.pdf) and ACRU (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521tsacamericancivilrightsunion.pdf) brief against us. Thanks GOA and ACRU!

Chicago quotes "George C. Thomas III, Newspapers and the Fourteenth Amendment: What did the American Public Know About Section 1?" which purports to use an online newspaper database to see if the ratifying public new what privileges or immunities meant. David Hardy did some quick fact checking (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1508604) of how that paper was done and the reason it didn't find even the known examples was that the OCR software clearly failed when making the search database.

Side note: I need to check one of their quotes to the Congressional Globe as I think it may not mean what they'd like it to mean. If I'm right I'll post a follow up on in this thread.

Chicago argues that no court knew about the intent to bind the states to the first eight amendments -well, except for, "[o]nly Justice Bradley’s dissent , joined by Justice Swayne, endorsed a view that the Clause encompassed the first eight amendments." Only the pesky dissent in the case our side is claiming is wrongly decided…

Chicago baldly claims, "If there had been a public understanding that the Privileges or Immunities Clause made the Bill of Rights applicable against the States, those Justices would have been unable in good faith to ignore it, and commentators on the Court’s decision in [I]SlaughterHouse would have been equally clear that a dreadful error had been made." Actually, that would be assuming the opposite conclusion of the entire argument that Slaughterhouse is wrong. Wow.

Chicago quotes Fairman and Berger. Fairman and Berger have been debunked as noted in CGF's amicus (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-tsac-calgunsfoundation.pdf) - and in some cases they were shown to be specifically racist in intent…

Chicago argues that even though a bunch of congressmen stated that the 14A was meant to allow the federal government to enforce the Constitution that somehow the Constitution at 1866 didn't include the Bill of Rights…

Chicago points out, "Congress itself completely disbanded the militia in southern States, and prohibited any further arming of those militias. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, ch. 170, § 6, 14 Stat. 485, 487." They studiously don't mention that the original proposal in that bill was to also disarm those militia, but that Republicans and Democratic congressman decided that would be unconstitutional under the 2A and amended it into the form actually passed.

Chicago then trots out a lot of state legislation in the 1880 and 1890's, most of which was in fact overturned by the various State Supreme Courts under their own RKBAs. A lot of those decisions are referenced in the body of Heller...

In note 26, two out of three scholars that supposedly "reached a contrary conclusion" to the vast scholarly agreement that Slaughterhouse is wrong are Fairman and Berger who have been debunked to say it nicely.

We're going to get some legal scholars as Amici on Chicago's side saying Slaughterhouse was correct. That should be amusing. Here is a hint. If you're going to college, don't take history from anyone who signs onto that brief.

WTF? There is no note 28 or 29 and note 30 doesn't show up in the brief… That's kind of amateur for a SCOTUS brief of this magnitude…

Also note that Chicago would really like the court to not rule on the re-registration requirements...

The key to this brief is knowing all the critical facts it leaves out. :43:

-Gene

yellowfin
12-30-2009, 10:42 PM
If they argue states rights, then AZ, MT, TX, et al can ignore the NFA, GCA, etc. They can't have it both ways.

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 10:48 PM
thanks Gene, I did LOL several times reading your post... hope I didn't wake the wife up ;)

N6ATF
12-30-2009, 11:02 PM
Over 2 times the national average for both murder and robbery. :D

If they're goal was to increase violence, then I'd say it has been a great success.

It was, and it has been. Just as in DC (until Heller), NYC, SF, LA, etc...

But they can never admit it, lest they dig their own graves. Literally.

AlexDD
12-30-2009, 11:11 PM
Consequently, the Second Amendment generally
protects weapons in common use, regardless of
how useful they are for self-defense, and it does
not protect weapons not in common use that would
undoubtedly be useful for self-defense (e.g., machine
guns).

So, they are admitting say that full auto Glock 18 with a shoulder stock or any full auto is useful for self - defense. I love that! :43:

Can't wait to use that on my liberal associates on why I need one of those.

five.five-six
12-30-2009, 11:43 PM
meh, full auto sucks

hollabillz
12-31-2009, 12:21 AM
meh, full auto sucks

Hmmm... I think 5.56 and full auto go together nicely* :)

* and would undoubtedly be useful for self-defense

falawful
12-31-2009, 12:46 AM
"Well, then, military small arms ought to be especially protected. "

Isn't that what the Miller decision stated?

Electricboy
12-31-2009, 12:47 AM
Ok..... i read it. It seems to me they managed to make our point nicely a few times. While also stating that heller was ruled as a right to an armed militia and not an individual right. :TFH: most of it seemed to be confused babbling, contradicting some of what they stated earlier. :willy_nilly:

WOW. Cant wait to read Gura's response.

five.five-six
12-31-2009, 12:55 AM
so is Chicago stuck with this or can they try and fix it? I mean it has been filed right?

http://www.matazone.co.uk/sillyimages/blog/shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.gif

CaliColin
12-31-2009, 1:00 AM
I don't think they actually BELIEVE their own argument. They are grasping at straws because they know that under scrutiny, their logic is flawed. The argument is ineffective because there simply is not much of an argument to be made. That's as good as it gets on that side.

Fjold
12-31-2009, 6:03 AM
I got to around page 86 but my BS quotient maxed out for the year so I have to wait until Saturday to finish it. The problem with that is the last 20 pages of this crap will start me off wth a large percentage of my BS capacity for 2010 already used up.

I don't know if I'll make it through the oral arguments at this rate.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-31-2009, 6:23 AM
That Chicago would spend so much time arguing against the Bill of Rights just boggles my mind. So much that my head is doing the Linda Blair right now.

But, their inanity & self-contradictions are even worse.

Just one example of inanity:

"Handgun restrictions can be an effective tool for
curbing criminal street gangs, a major source of
crime and violence in Chicago. When the police see
gang members suspected of carrying guns, they can
make an arrest and remove the gun from the street.
This makes it riskier for gang members to ply their
trade outdoors, thus making the streets safer."


REALLY????!!!!! Is that how it works in Chicago? The streets are really then so very safe because of this? Obviously not, because they also go on about just how dangerous the streets of Chicago are.

And do I really need to comment about silly it is to arrest the gun & remove it from the street? Of course, maybe that's why the streets of Chicago are still dangerous. They arrest the guns & leave the gang-bangers out to roam about.

Just one example of self-contradiction:

(from page 59)"....Rather, although the right was valued and embodied in a variety of other sources of law, there is every reason to believe that the Framers thought that the non-militia-related aspect of the right—primarily, the desire to have arms available for self-defense—would be adequately protected in the political process (as the right was in England, see 128 S. Ct. at 2798) by the ordinary process of democratic decisionmaking."

Yet, just three pages later, we see:

"...Nor does the history indicate that the Framers
believed it was implicit in a system of ordered liberty
that the right to keep and bear arms be protected
from the democratic political process."


Aside from contradicting themselves, the Right has NOT been "protected" in England & Defendants argue that it shouldn't be protected in Chicago either.


Something so out there that it's past inane:

"Others believed that the Privileges or Immunities
Clause rendered Article IV, § 2 enforceable. Sen. Poland, for example, said that the Clause “secures nothing beyond what was intended” by Article IV, § 2. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2961 (1866). Rep. Bingham himself described “the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States” as being the same as the rights against state discrimination found in Article IV, § 2. Id. at 1089. Article IV, § 2 was itself a nondiscrimination obligation, requiring States to afford the same “fundamental” privileges and immunities provided its own citizens to citizens “in every other State.” Corfield, 6 F. Cas. at 551-52. See also Paul, 75 U.S. at 179-83 (Article IV, § 2
prohibits “discriminating legislation against” citizens of other States). And Corfield did not indicate that the Privileges or Immunities Clause included the Bill of Rights."


HUH????!!!!! How on earth does any of that render Article IV, § 2 unenforceable??????

Besides which, with Heller, the 2A IS a "fundamental" Right & so worthy of protection.


Under the heading of 'This means what we say it means only because we want it to say that' comes this:

"Other Representatives expressed the notion that
the Fourteenth Amendment would facilitate enforcement
of constitutional provisions against States. See, 69
e.g., Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 586 (1866) (gives Congress “power to enforce by appropriate legislation all the guarantees of the Constitution”) (Rep. Donnelly); id. at 1054 (would “give vitality and life to portions of the Constitution”) (Rep. Higby); id. at 1057 (protects rights “already to be found in the Constitution”) (Rep. Kelley); id. at 1088 (protects “privileges and immunities which are guarantied . . . under the Constitution”) (Rep. Woodbridge). But none of them refers to the Second Amendment or the Bill of Rights; and, given the overwhelming emphasis on addressing the Black Codes and combating discrimination, those comments are just as easily read as giving strength to Article IV, § 2—construed a few months after ratification as a non-discrimination provision. See Paul, 75 U.S. at 179-83."


Well, yes, none of them do refer to the Bill of Rights. But why would they? "The Constitution" includes all Amendments to that document, doesn't it? Couldn't their comments be just as "easily read" to think that when they said "The Constitution" they mean ALL of it? Especially considering that the guys quoted are all lawmakers & generally well educated to boot?


In short, it's hard to believe that people with at least 7 years of higher education & years of experience could write this POS. But the, when defending the undefendable, what else ya gonna do?


The Raisuli

benelli shooter
12-31-2009, 6:40 AM
This could be more complicated. Maybe Chicago has a closet gun lover on the inside. This person actually WANTS the USA to have a true second ammendent.

Therefore, they are producing the most stupid and ridiculous case against guns they can construct to give us a victory.

Not everything is what it always seems on the outside.

383green
12-31-2009, 6:53 AM
This could be more complicated. Maybe Chicago has a closet gun lover on the inside. This person actually WANTS the USA to have a true second ammendent.

Therefore, they are producing the most stupid and ridiculous case against guns they can construct to give us a victory.


We bounced similar theories around about Alison and various other DOJ employees, but in the end, both Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) and Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) suggest otherwise. ;)

PatriotnMore
12-31-2009, 7:02 AM
Glad you brought this up. What affect would Incorporation have on the challenges before the courts now on those issues?

If they argue states rights, then AZ, MT, TX, et al can ignore the NFA, GCA, etc. They can't have it both ways.

7222 Hawker
12-31-2009, 7:23 AM
“[f]ederalism is an older and
more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry
any particular kind of weapon.”????????

Is it just my ignorance or are they several hundred years upside down here?

Nope, I think you have it right my friend. And the city of Sacramento is going to support this?

VegasND
12-31-2009, 7:23 AM
Interesting thread, please keep the observations and comments coming.

dustoff31
12-31-2009, 7:24 AM
This could be more complicated. Maybe Chicago has a closet gun lover on the inside. This person actually WANTS the USA to have a true second ammendent.

Therefore, they are producing the most stupid and ridiculous case against guns they can construct to give us a victory.

Not everything is what it always seems on the outside.


Anything is possible. But I think it is simply a situation where they are going before the same court in which essentially the same case they are defending has already lost. They have to make some argument no matter how looney it is. The only other option they have is to tell their client, "Save your money, you'll loose. It's over."

PatriotnMore
12-31-2009, 7:46 AM
It would certainly further damage this brief to have the latest FBI report on reduced crime due to increase in ammunition and guns sales as one of the leading factors to the reduction in crime in 2009.

gcrtkd
12-31-2009, 8:17 AM
So, when incorporation wins the day, do we get to...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rOMk5GWvlks&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rOMk5GWvlks&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

jwb28
12-31-2009, 9:08 AM
Hey, at least the last two letters in the file name are right. BS.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-con...08-1521-bs.pdf

madmike
12-31-2009, 9:58 AM
Thank you Chicago! Happy New Year!!!!

-madmike.

Grakken
12-31-2009, 10:46 AM
Let's remember that we are dealing with idiots. So if this brief is idiotic, it might make sense to the idiots. I hope Gene is right and this gets trounced and we all say yay. However, Nordyke was a big win around here and has anything really changed? I don't think so. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

2009_gunner
12-31-2009, 10:49 AM
“the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule.” Pet. App. 9.

If only these Chicago types would understand the "local differences" idea when it comes to enacting a National Healthcare system. They want to ignore federalism and cram that down the national throat instead of allowing each state to decide the need for itself. Meanwhile, where it really matters, they want to destroy an enumerated Constitutional right under the guise of respecting federalism. What a joke.

Sgt Raven
12-31-2009, 11:03 AM
Let's remember that we are dealing with idiots. So if this brief is idiotic, it might make sense to the idiots. I hope Gene is right and this gets trounced and we all say yay. However, Nordyke was a big win around here and has anything really changed? I don't think so. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Nordyke was put on hold by the 9th until McD' is decided by SCOTUS. :rolleyes:

putput
12-31-2009, 11:03 AM
Found this on another site: "While the states can, and should be, laboratories to experiment, legislatures are still bound by the Constitution as a floor."

GuyW
12-31-2009, 11:08 AM
...some folks just shouldn't expose their briefs in public....

.

Sgt Raven
12-31-2009, 11:27 AM
...some folks just shouldn't expose their briefs in public....

.


....you saying that Chi-Town has drooping briefs OG style?.... :rofl2:

Aegis
12-31-2009, 11:29 AM
After quickly looking at this thing, I have come to a conclusion. Chicago must really be in a terrible financial position. The city probably could not afford to hire a good lawyer to write this document and had a second rate attorney draft the argument.

There are probably a few ethically bankrupt justices on the SCOTUS that will look at this argument and think it is brilliant.

nicki
12-31-2009, 12:17 PM
Clear and Concise this brief is not.:TFH:

Give Gene a break, this is a hard one to read, Chicago must have paid some big bucks to create this crap. I

It obviously took many hours of lawyer hours to craft this brief.


Nicki

6172crew
12-31-2009, 12:26 PM
Clear and Concise this brief is not.:TFH:

Give Gene a break, this is a hard one to read, Chicago must have paid some big bucks to create this crap. I

It obviously took many hours of lawyer hours to craft this brief.


Nicki

It looks like the White house staff rigged it up last second.

PatriotnMore
12-31-2009, 12:31 PM
There are probably a few ethically bankrupt justices on the SCOTUS that will look at this argument and think it is brilliant.

That is what worries me. Time will tell.

Grakken
12-31-2009, 12:58 PM
Nordyke was put on hold by the 9th until McD' is decided by SCOTUS. :rolleyes:


It should never have been put on hold, is my point. Except some judge decided to go against his peer's ruling and wanted to en banc. Whats to say some judge/lawyer won't find a similar way to stall/overturn any favorable ruling in our favor in this case? Thus pushing out even further, all these cases that are "onhold".

bruss01
12-31-2009, 1:37 PM
Clear and Concise this brief is not.:TFH:

Give Gene a break, this is a hard one to read, Chicago must have paid some big bucks to create this crap. I

It obviously took many hours of lawyer hours to craft this brief.

Nicki

The Chicago lawyers know they have a losing case. But they are being paid to defend that losing case because the client (Chicago) wants to do so. It makes perfect sense to me that if they know they are going down in flames at least they want to make top dollar for having done so. Naturally they would want the biggest, most time consuming (billable hours) legal brief they can plausibly construct, make the client think they really tried very hard.

bridgeport
12-31-2009, 1:43 PM
“the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule.” Pet. App. 9.

If only these Chicago types would understand the "local differences" idea when it comes to enacting a National Healthcare system. They want to ignore federalism and cram that down the national throat instead of allowing each state to decide the need for itself. Meanwhile, where it really matters, they want to destroy an enumerated Constitutional right under the guise of respecting federalism. What a joke.

In the 1780's, most folk lived and died within a 26 mile radius of where they were born. A trip from Virginia to charleston was a very big deal.
Today, an average trip to work can be 40 or 50 miles,one way, and a jet plane can have you from San Fran to New york in a matter of hours.
This fact alone certainly gives new meaning to what may be considered "local". Just food for thought.

vantec08
12-31-2009, 2:07 PM
I end up with the same thing consistently with these "anti" cities and states: they want a well-armed criminal class and a defenseless public -- and boy howdy has it succeded.


CA needs the castle doctrine

Meplat
12-31-2009, 2:25 PM
After quickly looking at this thing, I have come to a conclusion. Chicago must really be in a terrible financial position. The city probably could not afford to hire a good lawyer to write this document and had a second rate attorney draft the argument.

It almost looks like something written by folks who know the fix is in and are just presenting a christmas list to the justices. But the only real problem I can see would be if we lost a couple of our, judges before the rueling. I would not put anything past the Chicago/Obama machiene.


There are probably a few ethically bankrupt justices on the SCOTUS that will look at this argument and think it is brilliant.

Especially the ones who like to use foreign law to interpret our, Constitution!!!:rolleyes:

Meplat
12-31-2009, 3:37 PM
Gene:

Or any of our other informed law types:

It seems that in recent years several times I have noted that foreign law has been used in arguments before the SCOTUS. I know of a least one instance of foreign law being referenced in an opinion by justice Ginsburg.

Is this a new thing or has it always been thus? I understand our basis in old English law. But surly, the divergence of paths marked by the Declaration Of Independence must be respected? They go far beyond the other nations who derive their systems from our common heritage and careen off toward Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and the United Nations!

This stuff makes my blood boil!!:mad:

PowderBurn1
12-31-2009, 5:56 PM
tag this one:detective:

sreiter
12-31-2009, 6:38 PM
That Chicago would spend so much time arguing against the Bill of Rights just boggles my mind. So much that my head is doing the Linda Blair right now.

But, their inanity & self-contradictions are even worse.

Just one example of inanity:

"Handgun restrictions can be an effective tool for
curbing criminal street gangs, a major source of
crime and violence in Chicago. When the police see
gang members suspected of carrying guns, they can
make an arrest and remove the gun from the street.
This makes it riskier for gang members to ply their
trade outdoors, thus making the streets safer."


And do I really need to comment about silly it is to arrest the gun & remove it from the street? Of course, maybe that's why the streets of Chicago are still dangerous. They arrest the guns & leave the gang-bangers out to roam about.


The Raisuli

i think you're mis-reading that. the qoute is "MAKE A ARREST" and "REMOVE THE GUN FROM THE STREET"

not

arrest the gun

pat038536
12-31-2009, 7:50 PM
Ok..I'm confused. Can some one explain in layman's terms, did the case have the outcome we wanted or not?

383green
12-31-2009, 7:55 PM
Ok..I'm confused. Can some one explain in layman's terms, did the case have the outcome we wanted or not?

The McDonald case doesn't have an outcome yet. This thread is just about one of the two parties in the case (Chicago; the bad guys) filing their legal brief which gives their side of the argument. Oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court will come later, and then a while after that the court will publish their verdict.

CSDGuy
12-31-2009, 7:58 PM
Ok..I'm confused. Can some one explain in layman's terms, did the case have the outcome we wanted or not?
Not yet. Oral Arguments haven't been heard. This is strictly about Chicago's brief. I'm no lawyer, but this brief leaves much to be desired. In layman's terms... they attempted to polish a turd. IIRC, it's the same basic argument used during the Heller case. I would expect that the next brief to come down the pike from the McDonald's side should be quite interesting to read and put a good smack-down on this particular brief.

eaglemike
12-31-2009, 7:58 PM
Ok..I'm confused. Can some one explain in layman's terms, did the case have the outcome we wanted or not?
The case has not been decided. These were submitted written arguments.

I'm amazed at the writings of the Chicago attorneys, and the position of their clients. It's just baffling...... Did I not read and hear how the county was started, based on the founding documents, way back when? Reading some of the decisions since then, clearly racist, etc.... Just can't make sense out of Chicago's position. But what do I know......

I'm really - REALLY - looking forward to reading Gura's response.

all the best,
Mike

pat038536
12-31-2009, 8:24 PM
The McDonald case doesn't have an outcome yet. This thread is just about one of the two parties in the case (Chicago; the bad guys) filing their legal brief which gives their side of the argument. Oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court will come later, and then a while after that the court will publish their verdict.

gotcha.

7x57
12-31-2009, 9:37 PM
Trotting out collective rights again? To this court that just ruled no on that. Skillful!


Much snippage....


WTF? There is no note 28 or 29 and note 30 doesn't show up in the brief… That's kind of amateur for a SCOTUS brief of this magnitude…


Two of Gene's slights to the professionalism of the brief nicely bookend his comments, and bring to mind a question. I suspect good lawyers like to maintain a winning record, and therefore would tend not to take cases that look like losers. Richard II, King of Chicago can spend as much of his peasant's gold as he pleases on this case, so I doubt fees are in severe shortage (but then, I could be wrong--I don't have enough organized crime connections to understand Chicago politics :D). So one wonders if this indicates a certain difficulty in finding first-rate firms willing to take the case.

That would be a good sign. :43:

7x57

CCWFacts
12-31-2009, 10:44 PM
One thing I'm super-glad about is that that self-indulgent fool Maloney won't have the chance to argue for incorporation before SCOTUS.

press1280
01-01-2010, 4:46 AM
One thing I'm super-glad about is that that self-indulgent fool Maloney won't have the chance to argue for incorporation before SCOTUS.

IANAL, but once the 2A is incorporated, won't that mean Maloney may be able to have his case heard again since the main argument against him was that Heller didn't apply to the states? AFAIK, Maloney wasn't denied cert. with SCOTUS, his petition was "set aside"? So it could be possible in the future he does resurface if the 2nd Circuit says nunchuku are dangerous and unusual, and Maloney takes the appeal up (again) with SCOTUS.

cdtx2001
01-01-2010, 8:13 AM
What basis does this argument have in our court system at all, let alone a SCOTUS decision? We are not arguing for world rights, or for any other country. We are insisting that our rights, as stated in our Constitution, are upheld in the highest court.

4. Finally, the treatment of firearms rights in other
countries—especially countries that share our Anglo-
American heritage—supports the conclusion that the
Second Amendment right is not implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The legal systems of
England, Canada, and Australia each have their
roots in the same English law as does this country,
and each should be seen as a country in which
“ordered liberty” is valued. Yet each of them imposes
stringent regulations on firearms that would be
impermissible or at least suspect under Second
Amendment standards.

This brief makes my blood boil.

So what they are saying is they want to be like other countries, but can't since they are in the good ol USA. From a few excerpts posted here, it doesn't seem they are giving themselves much of a leg to stand on.

putput
01-01-2010, 8:24 AM
Ha ha... I hope that even the "wise ol' latina" will know the age old version of this passed on from mothers to children ie "if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?"


What basis does this argument have in our court system at all, let alone a SCOTUS decision? We are not arguing for world rights, or for any other country. We are insisting that our rights, as stated in our Constitution, are upheld in the highest court.

4. Finally, the treatment of firearms rights in other
countries—especially countries that share our Anglo-
American heritage—supports the conclusion that the
Second Amendment right is not implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The legal systems of
England, Canada, and Australia each have their
roots in the same English law as does this country,
and each should be seen as a country in which
“ordered liberty” is valued. Yet each of them imposes
stringent regulations on firearms that would be
impermissible or at least suspect under Second
Amendment standards.

This brief makes my blood boil.

Roadrunner
01-01-2010, 9:08 AM
Obviously Chicago believes, that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, do your dead level best to try and baffle them with male bovine excrement.

:cowboy:

Maestro Pistolero
01-01-2010, 11:16 AM
"Yet each of them imposes stringent regulations on firearms that would be impermissible or at least suspect under Second Amendment standards."

For the WIN!. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. Finally they understand.

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 11:26 AM
IANAL, but once the 2A is incorporated, won't that mean Maloney may be able to have his case heard again since the main argument against him was that Heller didn't apply to the states? AFAIK, Maloney wasn't denied cert. with SCOTUS, his petition was "set aside"? So it could be possible in the future he does resurface if the 2nd Circuit says nunchuku are dangerous and unusual, and Maloney takes the appeal up (again) with SCOTUS.

Maloney's case will be "reversed and remanded" based on the decision in McDonald. That means he'll return to the District Court and be heard anew. It wouldn't surprise me if he wins in the lower courts and no one appeals his win to SCOTUS.

Soon we'll reach a point where states don't want to create binding precedent outside their Circuit by appealing to SCOTUS when the state loses. Luckily D.C. isn't that smart.

-Gene

2009_gunner
01-01-2010, 11:31 AM
I'm really - REALLY - looking forward to reading Gura's response.
Mike

So there will be a written response by Gura to this Chicago brief? When will that be released?

7x57
01-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Maloney's case will be "reversed and remanded" based on the decision in McDonald. That means he'll return to the District Court and be heard anew. It wouldn't surprise me if he wins in the lower courts and no one appeals his win to SCOTUS.


Really? I figured he'd sink the case no matter what.

I'd be happy if he wins--in spite of being a raging idiot I don't recall any offputting color and his claim was righteous. The state has no business telling him chucks are stupid self-defense weapons (even if they are--*I* can say so, but the state isn't to have opinions on the matter :D).


Soon we'll reach a point where states don't want to create binding precedent outside their Circuit by appealing to SCOTUS when the state loses.


I don't think I'd ever get used to such a world. However, I'm willing to bear that cross for all of you, so carry on. :D


Luckily D.C. isn't that smart.


I'm so glad that the pain of stupid isn't something only our side suffers anymore.

If I live to see the day when the die-hard antigunners are moaning about the terrible strategy and representation they had in the early 21st century, I will find it very difficult to be courteous instead of doing a rude little victory dance. :eek:

7x57

timdps
01-01-2010, 12:09 PM
So there will be a written response by Gura to this Chicago brief? When will that be released?

Given the huge amount of BS that he needs to refute, I suspect that he will be busy on that project for a while...:D

Tim

Mulay El Raisuli
01-01-2010, 12:54 PM
i think you're mis-reading that. the qoute is "MAKE A ARREST" and "REMOVE THE GUN FROM THE STREET"

not

arrest the gun


I couldn't find the 'irony' emoticon.


The Raisuli

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 1:02 PM
Gura's reply brief is due January 29th. Block your calendars and have your favorite tasty beverage ready. Be careful though as Gura's briefs have been known to cause beverages to exit via nasal passages...

-Gene

wildhawker
01-01-2010, 1:04 PM
I'll gladly take Maker's through the nostril for what is sure to be a historic *****slap.

N6ATF
01-01-2010, 1:16 PM
Gura's reply brief is due January 29th. Block your calendars and have your favorite tasty beverage ready. Be careful though as Gura's briefs have been known to cause beverages to exit via nasal passages...

-Gene

On the Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw Show (http://www.dscshow.com/) down here in San Diego, they call it:

ASNR=Acute, Spontaneous, Nasal Reflux.

yellowfin
01-01-2010, 1:38 PM
I think I might host a party at our club to read it.

The Nomadd
01-01-2010, 3:36 PM
Gura's reply brief is due January 29th. Block your calendars and have your favorite tasty beverage ready. Be careful though as Gura's briefs have been known to cause beverages to exit via nasal passages...

-Gene

Yeah, thanks for that heads-up. Dunno if the service contract on my laptop would cover that.

huggybear
01-01-2010, 5:10 PM
ok, I've read alot about this but there is one thing i still dont understand, what exactly would incorporation do for us here in California?

aileron
01-01-2010, 5:18 PM
The bill of rights would apply to you as a citizen here in good ol' california... most specifically the 2nd amendment. This means the state can no longer claim you have no second amendment rights.

That's for starters... it gets better, but I will let better minds comment on how deep the rabbit hole will go for us all..

Matt C
01-01-2010, 5:18 PM
Not yet. Oral Arguments haven't been heard. This is strictly about Chicago's brief. I'm no lawyer, but this brief leaves much to be desired. In layman's terms... they attempted to polish a turd. IIRC, it's the same basic argument used during the Heller case. I would expect that the next brief to come down the pike from the McDonald's side should be quite interesting to read and put a good smack-down on this particular brief.

Actually (so far, I'm still reading) I think is a much better written argument than the other side had in Heller. There is a nice play towards State's rights rather fighting the Second amendment, and some pressure in the direction of if you incorporate you will have to 'overturn Slaughter-House and apply all of the amendments to the states through the privileges and immunities clause'.

huggybear
01-01-2010, 5:20 PM
The bill of rights would apply to you the citizen here in good ol' california... most specifically the 2nd amendment.

so would the california roster be taken away and ccw permitts would be shall issue? or is that still a longs way away?

aileron
01-01-2010, 5:24 PM
so would the california roster be taken away and ccw permitts would be shall issue? or is that still a longs way away?

This is an excellent post by Hoffmang on what has happened, and what is to come....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=252923

That should start you down the road on understanding where we are at.

ETA: Also, there is another post that has a strategy laid out that goes down the list of what is thought to be the best course to get all of our gun rights back. I'll try to add that here.

EETA: huggybear look here for postulating about what to expect in the next 10 years.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=242126

fd15k
01-01-2010, 5:24 PM
so would the california roster be taken away and ccw permitts would be shall issue? or is that still a longs way away?

Probably another year or so ? Personally I can't wait for AW and high-cap challenges to be filed :43:

383green
01-01-2010, 5:25 PM
so would the california roster be taken away and ccw permitts would be shall issue? or is that still a longs way away?

That would still be a way in the future. No CA laws would go away immediately, but it would finally be possible to challenge them in court on second amendment grounds. And certain cases that are already on hold waiting for the McDonald verdict (Sykes, and Peña) would move forwards again.

artherd
01-01-2010, 5:34 PM
Gura's reply brief is due January 29th. Block your calendars and have your favorite tasty beverage ready. Be careful though as Gura's briefs have been known to cause beverages to exit via nasal passages...

-Gene

You know, it's kindof like swatting a fly with a witty and articulate nuke.

huggybear
01-01-2010, 5:36 PM
so cases like Pena and Sykes are waiting for this case to be over so that they could move forward? What happens if we lose the MacDonald case, would those other cases be dead in the water?

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 6:12 PM
so cases like Pena and Sykes are waiting for this case to be over so that they could move forward? What happens if we lose the MacDonald case, would those other cases be dead in the water?

Those cases would be rejected under the theory that the 2A doesn't apply to the states. However, we have a very high likelihood of winning McDonald.

-Gene

8-Ball
01-01-2010, 7:17 PM
I worry for Mr. Gura's health...

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 7:49 PM
I worry for Mr. Gura's health...

Don't worry. He eats glass and spits acid. He'll sleep when he's dead.

-Gene

7x57
01-01-2010, 7:51 PM
I think I might host a party at our club to read it.

Interesting idea. Dramatic reading party?

7x57

aileron
01-01-2010, 7:55 PM
Interesting idea. Dramatic reading party?

7x57

That would be cool to go to... especially if there were comments on what each article means for the less legally adept of the crowd.

7x57
01-01-2010, 7:55 PM
I worry for Mr. Gura's health...

He was looking pretty fit at Nordyke II. I think he's safe from "natural causes" for quite a while. So the only worries would require you to get your :TFH: on.

Don't worry. He eats glass and spits acid. He'll sleep when he's dead.


He does? Is this what goes on when the rest of us go home and the Insiders go out on the town in San Francisco? :eek:

7x57

7x57
01-01-2010, 7:59 PM
That would be cool to go to... especially if they're were comments on what that means for the less legally adept of the crowd.

Well, I already suggested a "Bible Thumpers and Pagans" philosophy dinner, this would sort of fit the general theme of "guns and High Culture".

We could have an "open mike" with people taking turns reading a paragraph or two as dramatically as they can.

Of course, this would almost be more fun to do with Chi-town's brief, since farce is easier than drama. :D

I'd be tempted to come dressed as King Richard of Chicago, but I'm not sure he looks distinctive enough to parody properly. Though one could try.... :43:

7x57

383green
01-01-2010, 8:02 PM
I'd be tempted to come dressed as King Richard of Chicago, but I'm not sure he looks distinctive enough to parody properly. Though one could try.... :43:

Just come dressed as the Burger King... we'll get the idea. :D

wildhawker
01-01-2010, 8:06 PM
He does? Is this what goes on when the rest of us go home and the Insiders go out on the town in San Francisco? :eek:

7x57

:whistling::gene:

hoffmang
01-01-2010, 8:08 PM
He does? Is this what goes on when the rest of us go home and the Insiders go out on the town in San Francisco? :eek:


No comment. :31:

-Gene

7x57
01-01-2010, 8:15 PM
Just come dressed as the Burger King... we'll get the idea. :D

Well, what about this:

http://www.gangresearch.net/cvl/gallery/Daley_mayor.jpg

7x57

383green
01-01-2010, 8:17 PM
Well, what about this:

Not quite as creepy, but it'll do. ;)

7x57
01-01-2010, 8:17 PM
No comment. :31:


Guilty as charged, then. Let it be so recorded. :43:

But for the sake of our future cases, please clarify the precise nature of the acid in question. :chris:

7x57

383green
01-01-2010, 8:19 PM
But for the sake of our future cases, please clarify the precise nature of the acid in question. :chris:


My money's on nitric acid... :whistling:

jb7706
01-01-2010, 9:00 PM
My money's on nitric acid... :whistling:

I'd be surprised if it were anything less than an 80% solution of antimony pentaflouride in hyrdoflouric Acid. Anything less would likely not make it through the years of crusty bad law we need to eradicate in enough time for us to enjoy the results in our lifetime.

But then, IANAL.

383green
01-01-2010, 9:04 PM
I'd be surprised if it were anything less than an 80% solution of antimony pentaflouride in hyrdoflouric Acid. Anything less would likely not make it through the years of crusty bad law we need to eradicate in enough time for us to enjoy the results in our lifetime.

But then, IANAL.

Nitric acid is a precursor for various explosives, and for smokeless gunpowder. ;)

GoodEyeSniper
01-01-2010, 9:14 PM
Wow, this is really making my new year. However... maybe it's just me, but I still have fears that no matter how inane and inept their side's argument is, things still might not go our way. Just because of preconceived notions by some of the justices... Maybe I'm just not trying to get my hopes up?

Meplat
01-01-2010, 9:30 PM
I worry for Mr. Gura's health...

I fear for the health of certain justices. Like I said before the Chicago brief reads like a Christmas list written by people who know the fix is in.:eek::TFH:

Mulay El Raisuli
01-04-2010, 12:19 PM
3. Note in footnote 23 that Chicago uses the GOA (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-tsac-gunownersofamerica.pdf) and ACRU (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521tsacamericancivilrightsunion.pdf) brief against us. Thanks GOA and ACRU!

-Gene


I finally was able to read these two Briefs. It seems that the main thrust of each of them (the ACRU being the better written of the two) is the the 2A should apply only to citizens, as opposed to persons in general. I don't know that I disagree with that.


If I have mis-read this, I'd like to have you point out my error. Anything else you have to say would, as always, be read with great interest also.


The Raisuli

dantodd
01-04-2010, 2:51 PM
I finally was able to read these two Briefs. It seems that the main thrust of each of them (the ACRU being the better written of the two) is the the 2A should apply only to citizens, as opposed to persons in general. I don't know that I disagree with that.


If I have mis-read this, I'd like to have you point out my error. Anything else you have to say would, as always, be read with great interest also.


The Raisuli

The Second Amendment should apply EXACTLY as the other indiviual rights amendments in the BoR apply. IF the first applies to non-citizens, the second does. If non-citizens enjoy the rights of the fourth and fifth then they should also enjoy those of the second.

The Bill of Rights is a listing of rights which are a minimal assurance in a free society, to go down the road of limiting who gets the privileges of each right is to go down a road that leads away from freedom.

Glock22Fan
01-04-2010, 3:04 PM
The Second Amendment should apply EXACTLY as the other indiviual rights amendments in the BoR apply. IF the first applies to non-citizens, the second does. If non-citizens enjoy the rights of the fourth and fifth then they should also enjoy those of the second.

The Bill of Rights is a listing of rights which are a minimal assurance in a free society, to go down the road of limiting who gets the privileges of each right is to go down a road that leads away from freedom.

I don't always agree with dantodd, but on this issue I absolutely do. As someone who was a legal resident before becoming a citizen, I absolutely agree that ALL of the BoR applies to everyone. Even illegal residents, I think, as surely if these are God-given rights, God certainly didn't say "Now let me see, I think I'll restrict these to US citizens."

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:06 PM
Illegal immigrants shouldn't have rights under US Constitution, but they can have some privileges.

I don't always agree with dantodd, but on this issue I absolutely do. As someone who was a legal resident before becoming a citizen, I absolutely agree that ALL of the BoR applies to everyone. Even illegal residents, I think, as surely if these are God-given rights, God certainly didn't say "Now let me see, I think I'll restrict these to US citizens."

Hopi
01-04-2010, 3:15 PM
Illegal immigrants shouldn't have rights under US Constitution, but they can have some privileges.

So, only those born within the borders, or whom later take and pass a written test, are able to enjoy rights given to them by God at birth?

Interesting. Sadly, I think your implication is the current legal reality. It's too bad that god-given rights can be infringed under the umbrella of state-discretion. Kinda defeats the point doesn't it?

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:23 PM
Legal residents are still included in these provisions, because they are entitled to become citizens.
Yet I still see them as privileges, because permanent residents do not have obligations of the citizens (don't have to vote, don't have to be on jury duty, etc).
I am a permanent resident too, so I am also speaking of myself.

What does the law say on purchase of firearms by non-citizens/non-perm-residents ? ;) And that's a clear illustration - should it even be Washington DC, where 2A is current, or a state like Arizona with 2A duplicated in state constitution...


So, only those born within the borders, or whom later take and pass a written test, are able to enjoy rights given to them by God at birth?

Interesting. Sadly, I think your implication is the current legal reality. It's too bad that god-given rights can be infringed under the umbrella of state-discretion. Kinda defeats the point doesn't it?

Hopi
01-04-2010, 3:30 PM
Legal residents are still included in these provisions, because they are entitled to become citizens.
Yet I still see them as privileges, because permanent residents to not have obligation of the citizens (don't have to vote, don't have to be on jury duty, etc).
I am a permanent resident too, so I am also speaking of myself.

What does the law say on purchase of firearms by non-citizens/non-perm-residents ? ;) And that's a clear illustration - should it even be Washington DC, where 2A is current, or a state like Arizona with 2A duplicated in state constitution...


Maybe I'm misreading you, but to be clear, if I'm picking up what you're laying down...then we couldn't disagree more. Rights are not privileges.

rero360
01-04-2010, 3:32 PM
Just or unjust the law is the law, while we do not agree with the laws that restrict our gun ownership we do do our best to stay up to date on them and obey them.

What I don't understand is peoples stance that every law no matter how idiotic has to be obeyed until legal methods have been used to overturn said law, yet its ok for someone else to disregard the law of the land and come here illegally.

I'm all for immigration, I think we as a nation have benifited greatly from immigrants, however I feel that one of the best ways that they can prove that they will be productive and upstanding citizens is by following the law in coming to the US. I mean if someone is not going to follow the immigration laws, who says they're going to follow any other laws we have.

I do believe that the immigration laws need a serious overhaul to make them more efficient, and I support those who work to those ends, however the laws as they are at the moment are the law and should be follow as such.

So while I agree with Hopi that the right to self defense is a fundemental right, minus the god part, I disagree in principal as people should have more integrity and obey the laws that on the books, thus there would be no illegal immigrants, thus that being a mute point. Alas that is not the case.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:33 PM
I think what you're missing is that rights are not unlimited. Thus sometimes, while something is a right for one person, is not a right for another.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but to be clear, if I'm picking up what you're laying down...then we couldn't disagree more. Rights are not privileges.

AEC1
01-04-2010, 3:37 PM
So illegals should vote?

Hopi
01-04-2010, 3:37 PM
I think what you're missing is that rights are not unlimited. Thus sometimes, while something is a right for one person, is not a right for another.

I'm not missing anything. If you'll read my first post above I acknowledge that your implication might be the current legal reality, however that certainly doesn't make it correct or just.

Why do you think people are spending tons of time, effort, and money to slap these types of laws off the books? The law does not match the constitution. Simple as that.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:42 PM
What I've seen so far, people spend all of that trying to challenge unconstitutional laws employed by the STATES. While you were talking about the actual scope of constitution on the national level, as it might apply to unlawful residents. Apples and oranges, no ?

I'm not missing anything. If you'll read my first post above I acknowledge that your implication might be the current legal reality, however that certainly doesn't make it correct or just.

Why do you think people are spending tons of time, effort, and money to slap these types of laws off the books? The law does not match the constitution. Simple as that.

Hopi
01-04-2010, 3:42 PM
So illegals should vote?

That issue is more complicated than that. Citizenship should be accessible enough to make the notion of 'illegal status' unreasonable.

The point still remains that 'god-given' cannot exclusively apply only to U.S. citizens.

Hopi
01-04-2010, 3:48 PM
What I've seen so far, people spend all of that trying to challenge unconstitutional laws employed by the STATES. While you were talking about the actual scope of constitution on the national level, as it might apply to unlawful residents. Apples and oranges, no ?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here, but state .govs are subordinate to the BOR. That is the topic of this thread, whether or not the 2a will apply to the states.

Sgt Raven
01-04-2010, 4:56 PM
So illegals should vote?
That issue is more complicated than that. Citizenship should be accessible enough to make the notion of 'illegal status' unreasonable.

The point still remains that 'god-given' cannot exclusively apply only to U.S. citizens.

I'll agree with Heinlein in Starship Troopers, if you want a voice in the Government you have to serve. ;)

yellowfin
01-04-2010, 7:06 PM
I'll agree with Heinlein in Starship Troopers, if you want a voice in the Government you have to serve. ;)I'd say participating in the fight for American freedom against its domestic enemies, often elected, counts as service. It's equally necessary and sadly neglected. If we had 1/4 the number of people of the armed forces fighting as hard against encroachment upon American freedom coming from DC, Sacramento, Albany, Trenton, and Chicago as we did against Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, or Tripoli we wouldn't be having the problems we are now. For some reason one is recognized and the other not, I guess maybe the whole glamor of danger thing or that it's more obvious when you blow up a tank than defeat a bad bill.

artherd
01-04-2010, 7:25 PM
He does? Is this what goes on when the rest of us go home and the Insiders go out on the town in San Francisco? :eek:
7x57

I have no recollection of that, Senator.

PatriotnMore
01-04-2010, 7:49 PM
Can someone answer what happens to cases such as this if there is a win for incorporation?
If they argue states rights, then AZ, MT, TX, et al can ignore the NFA, GCA, etc. They can't have it both ways.

Below is a reply I read on the subject:

You can not have a separation of powers between the Federal Government, the States, and We the People if the US Constitution applies to the States.

The Federal Government was "intended" to be the least intrusive part of government to We the People. It gains it's powers from the US Constitution. Any powers not directly granted in the text of the Contsitution were withheld for the States or We the People. As such, the powers of any state are granted through the individual states' Constitution. In ALL cases, if a power is not directly grant by the perspective Constitution, then this power is retained by We The People.

To allow the Federal Government to Use the US Constitution as a means to override the powers of the State is defeating the purpose of checks and balances in the Republic. In this case you assume this is good. In one sense (gun issues) it is, but if cared over to other issues then it could be very bad. We live in trying and confusing times. Do not base your opinions on confusion, base it on truth and fact.

The bottom line is, Use the US Constitution to restrict the powers of the Federal Government. Use the State Constitutions to restrict the power of State Governments. We the people can control the power of local governments directly.

Power passes from We the People to the State Government and then from the State Government to the Federal Government, do not reverse this course of the granting of power.s this mean States

I have to say I agree with the underlined, it concerns me that we may win one battle, but at what cost?

dantodd
01-04-2010, 8:12 PM
Can someone answer what happens to cases such as this if there is a win for incorporation?


Below is a reply I read on the subject:

You can not have a separation of powers between the Federal Government, the States, and We the People if the US Constitution applies to the States.

The Federal Government was "intended" to be the least intrusive part of government to We the People. It gains it's powers from the US Constitution. Any powers not directly granted in the text of the Contsitution were withheld for the States or We the People. As such, the powers of any state are granted through the individual states' Constitution. In ALL cases, if a power is not directly grant by the perspective Constitution, then this power is retained by We The People.

To allow the Federal Government to Use the US Constitution as a means to override the powers of the State is defeating the purpose of checks and balances in the Republic. In this case you assume this is good. In one sense (gun issues) it is, but if cared over to other issues then it could be very bad. We live in trying and confusing times. Do not base your opinions on confusion, base it on truth and fact.

The bottom line is, Use the US Constitution to restrict the powers of the Federal Government. Use the State Constitutions to restrict the power of State Governments. We the people can control the power of local governments directly.

Power passes from We the People to the State Government and then from the State Government to the Federal Government, do not reverse this course of the granting of power.s this mean States

I have to say I agree with the underlined, it concerns me that we may win one battle, but at what cost?

The long and short of it is yes, but....

Yes, all powers not delegated to the Federal government by the people in the Constitution is retained by "the people" of the individual states. The State constitutions individually spell out the limits or delegation of authority the states have over their residents/citizens (the model of state citizenship is a touchy issue and thankfully mostly dead now days but there are a few nutjobs and tax evaders trying to exert state citizenship claims.) IMO, What the 14th amendment was intended to do is NOT to grab additional power for the Federal Government but rather insure the individual rights spelled out in the BoR to all U.S. citizens and protect those rights against State action. (i.e., if the rights are inviolable by the feds then the States can't take them from you either.)

The problem (and the reason for NFA, GCA etc.) is that the Interstate Commerce Clause is being abused by the Congress worse than a $2 hooker. What was intended to prevent State A from interfering with trade involving State B has been hijacked by the Feds to allow them to pass any old law they like as long as they claim that any aspect of the bill is related to Interstate Commerce. The Gun Free School Zone is an excellent example. It got whacked the first time through the courts because congress didn't have the authority to pass the damn thing. So, congress re-wrote the exact same law and added verbage about the possibility that a gun could be used in interstate commerce; therefore by regulating the carrying of a gun they are essentially just regulating interstate commerce. Ain't that a *****. Sadly, the poor Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused in even worse ways, a quick google should make you want to cry.

AEC1
01-05-2010, 5:44 AM
That issue is more complicated than that. Citizenship should be accessible enough to make the notion of 'illegal status' unreasonable.

The point still remains that 'god-given' cannot exclusively apply only to U.S. citizens.

No it is not. You have to have a stake in the country to cast your lot with us. It is not that dificult to become a US citizen, from our point anyway. Go down to any recruiting station, do your 4 years and you get our with GI bill, and a trade, and your citizenship. I know I have had 5 of my sailors do it.

yellowfin
01-05-2010, 6:33 AM
Slightly OT of current discussion but pertinent to the overall matter at hand, isn't the Palmer case due for court hearing this month, or some further action of some variety?

Mulay El Raisuli
01-05-2010, 6:59 AM
The Second Amendment should apply EXACTLY as the other indiviual rights amendments in the BoR apply. IF the first applies to non-citizens, the second does. If non-citizens enjoy the rights of the fourth and fifth then they should also enjoy those of the second.

The Bill of Rights is a listing of rights which are a minimal assurance in a free society, to go down the road of limiting who gets the privileges of each right is to go down a road that leads away from freedom.


There's a lot to be said for that. I have no problem with aliens, even the illegal ones, being secure in their homes & papers, having the Right of expression, to defend themselves, etc. And I certainly do NOT want to be like the hypocritical types who define the 2A as protection for what they do, but not for what others do. (You know the type, the guys who think the 2A shouldn't protect EBRs, semi-autos, or <whatever> because it isn't what they favor) That ain't me.

But, we don't allow aliens to vote & that's an enumerated Constitutional Right (though not in the BofR). And the ACRU's argument that "The People" means "Citizens" (ie; people who have a stake in the govt) in this instance resonates with me. Yes, "The People" who are secure in their homes & papers don't have to be "Citizens" to be secure, but should an illegal alien really have the Constitutional Right to pack heat when he doesn't have the Constitutional Right to vote? We do make exceptions between Rights for all & Rights for citizens & I'm not sure that this shouldn't be one of them.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
01-05-2010, 7:24 AM
Some of you are confusing inherent rights ("negative" rights) with granted rights ("positive" rights). For instance, some of you are attempting to equate the right to keep and bear arms with the right to vote.

The right to vote wouldn't exist at all without the existence of the government to vote on and the infrastructure required to implement the vote. Those aren't things that always exist: they must be built. The right to vote is the right to affect the way the government itself operates. It should be obvious on its face that someone who is not lawfully living here should not have the right to affect the way the government operates. The absurdity of allowing that is trivial to show, for if such a thing were allowed then people from other nations could come to the U.S. in large numbers during elections and effectively steal the government out from underneath us, and cause it to serve their interests instead of ours.

The right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, etc., are all inherent rights -- they are things that, barring interference from the outside, we are able to do. The reason these rights are considered to be rights of "the people" as opposed to rights of "the citizenry" is precisely that they are things that people are by default able to do. Note that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant those rights, it forbids the violation of those rights on the part of the government.

Even the right to be secure in yourself and your possessions is a "negative" (or inherent) right: in your default state you are secure in those things, and only outside interference violates that.

Voting is not such a thing at all.

To limit the inherent rights of anyone is to, in essence, create a class of people whose rights we do not recognize. The only people who belong in that class are criminals who have intentionally violated the rights of someone else and are paying the penalty of doing so.

GuyW
01-05-2010, 8:05 AM
I have no problem with aliens, even the illegal ones, being secure in their homes & papers, having the Right of expression, to defend themselves, etc.
.....but should an illegal alien really have the Constitutional Right to pack heat when he doesn't have the Constitutional Right to vote?

Illegals shouldn't have any "rights" whatsoever except fair arrest, no torture, and fair trial. I want the @#$% sweating every day that they will be arrested and deported...
.

yellowfin
01-05-2010, 8:46 AM
Illegals shouldn't have any "rights" whatsoever except fair arrest, no torture, and fair trial. I want the @#$% sweating every day that they will be arrested and deported...
.1/4 of me doesn't like this for humanitarian reasons, but 3/4 of me says amen to that. All the stupid legal hassle ordinary legal folks like you and me have to go through just in everyday life that illegal aliens have NONE of makes me very, very irritable. They want rights? OK, then demand them from their own country instead of coming to ours illegally to bum them off us, or at very least have the decency to help us in the fight to keep our rights instead of being a very large part of the problem by supporting slimeballs like Villar, DeLeon, et al. Their parasitism kills our freedom, so they have absolutely no credibility demanding freedom from us.

Python2
01-05-2010, 9:15 AM
1/4 of me doesn't like this for humanitarian reasons, but 3/4 of me says amen to that. All the stupid legal hassle ordinary legal folks like you and me have to go through just in everyday life that illegal aliens have NONE of makes me very, very irritable. They want rights? OK, then demand them from their own country instead of coming to ours illegally to bum them off us, or at very least have the decency to help us in the fight to keep our rights instead of being a very large part of the problem by supporting slimeballs like Villar, DeLeon, et al. Their parasitism kills our freedom, so they have absolutely no credibility demanding freedom from us.

100% of me says amen. The funny thing though, yours truly was an immigrant, threatend to be deported even when trying to go through the process some forty years ago. Luckily I had little financial resource to leave, return with a student visa and start all over again. Illigals who refuse to go through the hoop have zero sympathy from me.

Mitch
01-05-2010, 9:17 AM
Illegals shouldn't have any "rights" whatsoever except fair arrest, no torture, and fair trial. I want the @#$% sweating every day that they will be arrested and deported...
.

You need to reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights as well as the foundation document for our nation, the Declaration of Independence. Illegal aliens have the same rights as you or I do.

mtptwo
01-05-2010, 10:59 AM
You need to reacquaint yourself with the Bill of Rights as well as the foundation document for our nation, the Declaration of Independence. Illegal aliens have the same rights as you or I do.

And thank god for that. People talk about god given rights, then want those rights limited to ones born is a certain geographical location make me :rolleyes:

shark92651
01-05-2010, 11:14 AM
Well this thread has certainly gone off topic - from discussing the Chicago brief to talk of deporting illegals...

Sgt Raven
01-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Illegals shouldn't have any "rights" whatsoever except fair arrest, no torture, and fair trial. I want the @#$% sweating every day that they will be arrested and deported...
.

And you'd be fine if we brought back slavery too, since they weren't born here and don't have any rights. :TFH: Natural rights are rights everyone has no matter where they're born.

kcbrown
01-05-2010, 11:19 AM
1/4 of me doesn't like this for humanitarian reasons, but 3/4 of me says amen to that. All the stupid legal hassle ordinary legal folks like you and me have to go through just in everyday life that illegal aliens have NONE of makes me very, very irritable. They want rights? OK, then demand them from their own country instead of coming to ours illegally to bum them off us, or at very least have the decency to help us in the fight to keep our rights instead of being a very large part of the problem by supporting slimeballs like Villar, DeLeon, et al. Their parasitism kills our freedom, so they have absolutely no credibility demanding freedom from us.

You would, then, turn them into slaves? Because a person who has no rights is a slave.

This country has already been down that road before.

If someone is here illegally then they have all the inherent rights that the rest of us have. What they do not have is the right to stay here -- that's what it means to be here illegally. So by being here, they risk deportation, something that is our right to do since by being here illegally they are violating our sovereignty: we told them they must do certain things to be here legally and they willfully ignore that.


Do not confuse the inherent rights we all have with the right to be at a given place at a given time. They are not the same thing.

yellowfin
01-05-2010, 11:26 AM
You would, then, turn them into slaves? Because a person who has no rights is a slave.Slave or resident of California, potato pototto tomato tomotto.


No, I suggest treating them as criminals because they are criminals. If I break the law, even some tiny technicalities like how many holes an AK receiver has even if they do nothing, bad stuff happens to me. Sometimes VERY bad stuff. Needless to say not being in the country legally is a lot bigger deal and a heck of a lot more avoidable and deliberate than that. So if I have to live under consequences of the law, then they should too.

Anyway, back to topic... I can't wait to see what Mr. Gura is cooking up. As asked before, isn't Palmer approaching?

Glock22Fan
01-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Illegal immigrants shouldn't have rights under US Constitution, but they can have some privileges.

But, I thought that the constitution was a recording of God-given rights. As the U.S. didn't exist when God gave us these rights, no way did he give them only to the citizens of the U.S. - he gave them to all people. Unlike most countries, we are lucky enough to have it in writing.

Glock22Fan
01-05-2010, 11:43 AM
I'll agree with Heinlein in Starship Troopers, if you want a voice in the Government you have to serve. ;)

I have a lot of respect for those who serve. But your view is kinda hard on those of us who through age, infirmity or whatever are not in a position so to do.

And one thing that annoyed me when I was a legal immigrant, I was not allowed to vote for the measures my taxes were going towards. What happened to "No taxation without representation!"

kcbrown
01-05-2010, 7:53 PM
Slave or resident of California, potato pototto tomato tomotto.


That unfortunately is far too true. :mad:



No, I suggest treating them as criminals because they are criminals.
The road to police statehood is paved with that, and we're well on our way already.

I very carefully phrased who belongs to the group of people whose rights we don't recognize: those who are doing penance for violating the rights of others. It wasn't an accident that I stated it that way.



If I break the law, even some tiny technicalities like how many holes an AK receiver has even if they do nothing, bad stuff happens to me. Sometimes VERY bad stuff. Needless to say not being in the country legally is a lot bigger deal and a heck of a lot more avoidable and deliberate than that. So if I have to live under consequences of the law, then they should too.
That's simply spreading the pain further and wider, rather than addressing it and eliminating it. Instead of insisting that others suffer as a result of their violations of some law because you would suffer as a result of your violations of some other law, would it not be better to eliminate as much of that suffering as possible? As I said in a different thread, is it not better to liberate than to suppress?

This republic was founded with the primary intention of protecting and preserving the rights of the people within it. That was the whole point of the U.S., the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc.

What makes a man's rights worthy of respect is not what nation he comes from. I believe the founders of the country used the term "the people" instead of something more limiting for that very reason.


If someone is here illegally then by right of sovereignty we can kick them out of the country. But ignoring their inherent rights takes us down a very, very dark path, one that ultimately led to civil war in this country once before. I'd rather be a shining beacon of freedom for all and be very aggressive about kicking illegals out than to treat illegals as chattel.



Anyway, back to topic... I can't wait to see what Mr. Gura is cooking up. As asked before, isn't Palmer approaching?Come June, I hope the pace with which we win these cases becomes breathtaking.

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 8:47 PM
Palmer (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia) is going to be heard January 22nd.

If the 2A is applied to the states via the P or I clause, legal immigrants will have virtually identical RKBA via the equal protection clause as persons get equal protection even if only citizens receive privileges or immunities.

Please come back on topic so I don't have to ask to lock the thread.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
01-06-2010, 6:14 AM
Some of you are confusing inherent rights ("negative" rights) with granted rights ("positive" rights). For instance, some of you are attempting to equate the right to keep and bear arms with the right to vote.

The right to vote wouldn't exist at all without the existence of the government to vote on and the infrastructure required to implement the vote. Those aren't things that always exist: they must be built. The right to vote is the right to affect the way the government itself operates. It should be obvious on its face that someone who is not lawfully living here should not have the right to affect the way the government operates. The absurdity of allowing that is trivial to show, for if such a thing were allowed then people from other nations could come to the U.S. in large numbers during elections and effectively steal the government out from underneath us, and cause it to serve their interests instead of ours.

The right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, etc., are all inherent rights -- they are things that, barring interference from the outside, we are able to do. The reason these rights are considered to be rights of "the people" as opposed to rights of "the citizenry" is precisely that they are things that people are by default able to do. Note that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant those rights, it forbids the violation of those rights on the part of the government.

Even the right to be secure in yourself and your possessions is a "negative" (or inherent) right: in your default state you are secure in those things, and only outside interference violates that.

Voting is not such a thing at all.

To limit the inherent rights of anyone is to, in essence, create a class of people whose rights we do not recognize. The only people who belong in that class are criminals who have intentionally violated the rights of someone else and are paying the penalty of doing so.


Outstanding. Maybe even brilliant. You have boiled the matter down to its essence & so have completely settled my mind on this. I am now with you 100%.

But, I think that will put even more pressure to make LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard. Its one thing to have 'just anybody' carrying concealed, quite another to have that when illegal aliens are part of that 'just anybody.'

So, since I believe that LOC is going to be the Minimum Constitutional Standard & that CCW is still going to require a license (albeit a "shall issue" one), the question of "Will illegals be allowed to pack heat concealed" is going to be answered in the negative. Just because they won't be allowed to even apply.

As to whether aliens of the legal variety will be allowed CCW, I'm guessing that the answer will be in the affirmative. After all, we let aliens drive & that's a mere privilege.


The Raisuli