|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:47 pm
Im confused as to the results of the Chicago gun-ban case.Can someone please explain it to me
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:03 am
What's to misunderstand?
You can now own handguns in Chicago.
Communist law overturned.
Good times were had by all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:04 am
Pistols have now been un-banned in the city. Mayor Daley had a s**t-fit about it, and in doing so accidentally called the US Supreme Court a bunch of criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:38 am
In the simplest of terms, while a city, county or state can impose reasonable laws on ownership of handguns, they cannot ban outright the private ownership of handguns.
An example of a valid law would be if you are a felon, then you cannot own a gun. That would be a legitimate condition for a law preventing an individual from buying a gun legally.
But a city cannot prevent all legal citizens from owning pistols. This is the second ruling by the court on this specific issue, Washington D.C. being the first case settled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:19 am
It's a bigger win for some than you realize. Over at a local forum, we're practically having a party over it. It means that one of the biggest anti-2A arguments has been knocked out. That the US constitution does, in fact apply to state and local governments. For a state trying to get shall-issue, we have them on the run and must organize to make a final push with a great, well organized case. Actually, a state delegate and some lawyers doing pro-bono work are planning on doing just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:40 am
Floyd In the simplest of terms, while a city, county or state can impose reasonable laws on ownership of handguns, they cannot ban outright the private ownership of handguns. An example of a valid law would be if you are a felon, then you cannot own a gun. That would be a legitimate condition for a law preventing an individual from buying a gun legally. But a city cannot prevent all legal citizens from owning pistols. This is the second ruling by the court on this specific issue, Washington D.C. being the first case settled. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:20 pm
Man of the Demoneye It's a bigger win for some than you realize. Over at a local forum, we're practically having a party over it. It means that one of the biggest anti-2A arguments has been knocked out. That the US constitution does, in fact apply to state and local governments. For a state trying to get shall-issue, we have them on the run and must organize to make a final push with a great, well organized case. Actually, a state delegate and some lawyers doing pro-bono work are planning on doing just that. Technically D.C. v. Heller made that decision already, just this case is taking that ruling's applications and using them to strike down more unjust laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:32 pm
I wonder who's going to be next? I'd hope Hawaii, but it probably won't be. They're a shall-issue state if you can prove you NEED a gun, but so far not a single person has ever been able to prove that to their standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:20 am
Make your living by dueling sharks. They always choose handguns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:52 pm
Its nice to know people are finally giving us a break.
On another note, you can now carry concealed weapons into places of worship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:11 am
I like how they scurried and tried pointing out how this can't be used against other laws.
Screw that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
