Supreme Court to rule on Chicago gun-ban case

[Little-Acorn]

Tomorrow (Monday, June 28) will hopefully be the day the Supreme Court hands down its verdict on the Chicago gun-ban case. It's a case similar to last year's US v. Heller case, except that that one took place in the Federal jurisdiction of Washington DC instead of a city that was part of a U.S. state.

Hopefully the verdict will roll back the efforts a little further, of the anti-gun-rights fanatics trying pretend the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the right of ordinary law-abiding people to own and carry guns. The Heller case did that to the extent of verifying that a person could own and carry a gun in his own home, and stating that a person did not have to have any affiliation with any militia or other military group, to have the right to own and carry.

Little by little, the anti-gun fanatics and functional illiterates who can't read the straightforward language of the 2nd amendment, are being overruled and sent packing. Hopefully this trend will continue tomorrow.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:

Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

----------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65Q0ND20100627

Court to rule on Sarbanes-Oxley and gun rights

James Vicini
WASHINGTON
Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:20am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court could strike down a key part of a 2002 corporate reform law and extend gun rights in the United States on Monday when the justices issue their final rulings of the term.

Politics

In eagerly awaited rulings, the nation's highest court is expected to decide the constitutionality of a national board that polices auditors of public companies and whether gun rights extend to every state and city in the nation.

Chief Justice John Roberts has already announced that Monday will be the last day of the 2009-10 term. It will also be the last time retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's leading liberal, takes the bench.

(snip)

In the gun rights case, even gun control advocates said they expect the Supreme Court to strike down Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban.

They said they also expect the court to extend its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states.

 

[Pandora]

Is this the first gun case "the wise Latina" will be sitting in on? I did not pay that much attention. Can you tell me how did Souter vote on these type of issues?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Is this the first gun case "the wise Latina" will be sitting in on? I did not pay that much attention. Can you tell me how did Souter vote on these type of issues?

In the US v. Heller case, a similar gun-ban case taking place in DC, the verdict was 5-4 in favor of the defendant. The court ruled that DC's ban on Heller keeping a gun in his house, was unconstitutional; and further ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not a collective one. Meaning, the 2nd amendment didn't just protect the right or a militia or National Guard unit to own its (the unit's) weapons, but also protected the right of an ordinary person to own and carry his own personal weapons, even if that person was not in a militia or ANY other military unit.

Souter dissented.

My guess is, my classmate Sotomayor will also dissent from that viewpoint. Though I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Pandora]

In the US v. Heller case, a similar gun-ban case taking place in DC, the verdict was 5-4 in favor of the defendant. The court ruled that DC's ban on Heller keeping a gun in his house, was unconstitutional; and further ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not a collective one. Meaning, the 2nd amendment didn't just protect the right or a militia or National Guard unit to own its (the unit's) weapons, but also protected the right of an ordinary person to own and carry his own personal weapons, even if that person was not in a militia or ANY other military unit.

Souter dissented.

My guess is, my classmate Sotomayor will also dissent from that viewpoint. Though I hope I'm wrong.

She is or was your classmate? Well even if she dissents the ruling should still go in favor of the constitution because she is just replacing a no vote


at least I hope so.

 

[Little-Acorn]

She is or was your classmate?

Yep, Princeton '76.

The ruling has been delivered. 5-4 in favor of people having the right to keep and bear arms.

The Chicago gun ban is overturned.

The 2nd amendment applies to state and local governments as well as Federal. ALL are forbidden to infringe the RKBA.

Another major refutation of the anti-gun-rights crowd.

 

[Gipper]

Yep, Princeton '76.

The ruling has been delivered. 5-4 in favor of people having the right to keep and bear arms.

The Chicago gun ban is overturned.

The 2nd amendment applies to state and local governments as well as Federal. ALL are forbidden to infringe the RKBA.

Another major refutation of the anti-gun-rights crowd.

Great news. Finally the Constitution is actually followed. Too bad lots of Chicagoans died because liberals stole their right to self protection. The consequences of liberalism can be deadly.

Can you believe four commie justices voted against it? That means four justices on the SC will not follow the Constitution. These sickening bastards want the USA ruled by liberal elite authoritarian tyrants...

Kagan compared the NRA to the KKK. Guess we know what this ugly Nazi will do on the SC.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yep, Princeton '76.

Oops, Sonia Sotomayor '76 was my classmate, as was Mike McCurry '76, one of Bill Clinton's spokesmen. Elena Kagan '81 came along later.

And Sam Alito '72 (author of today's Opinion) left the year before I got there. Nice that Old Nassau got at least one right.

 

[Pandora]

I am so glad the case went in the right direction. I wish more cases did.