Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1 Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court 
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

    June 2 (Bloomberg) -- A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

    The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Junior Member JDiddyGalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    It used to be a one state recession.
    Posts
    11
    Do 1st amendment rights apply to states and municipalities?
    800 pounds of p****d-off primate!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,578
    This should be turned over in the SC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars1701a View Post
    This should be turned over in the SC.
    Something tells me the supreme court will soon be in obamas pocket. If they don't favor his issues it will be becaues the are racist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Something tells me the supreme court will soon be in obamas pocket. If they don't favor his issues it will be becaues the are racist.
    I cant see them not striking that law down, I didnt ready the particulars of this case but it sounds much like the one from DC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars1701a View Post
    I cant see them not striking that law down, I didnt ready the particulars of this case but it sounds much like the one from DC.
    I agree with what you have stated the cases are similer. The court does not have to hear the case. They can ignore it or put it off indefinately. I am not impressed with them recently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    Interesting article at the NYT about the DC case. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/wa...scotuscnd.html

    This seems so clear cut. What is the appellate court thinking?
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I agree with what you have stated the cases are similer. The court does not have to hear the case. They can ignore it or put it off indefinately. I am not impressed with them recently.
    Well the only soft spot is always that 5th justice whats his name (escapes me ATM) No way the Conservtive i.e. smart, morally upstanding justices will vote to uphold the ruling,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate?
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by AlmostThere View Post
    I don't mean to be dense, what exactly is the difference in the law overturned in DC by the SCOTUS and the law upheld in Chicago by the appellate?
    Dont know myself but it should violate the 2nd
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •