What’s at stake
Friday, Sep 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* An e-mail from NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde about yesterday’s Illinois Supreme Court rulings on the right to carry guns in public…
Rich — here is the dilemma the state is now in.
Both the Federal Court and now the State Supreme Court have said that that there is a right to carry a firearm in public.
So the state passed a law that provides a way to carry a gun in public — get a carry permit. Yet, as of today, no carry permit exists for people to obtain. No state courses have been approved for people to even take to be able to apply for their permit.
So what is the relief? If the Courts say, carry ban unconstitutional, and the State has no way for us to comply with the “relief” of obtaining a carry permit — now what? And a growing amount of thinking is it is legal to carry today with a FOID card.
Now remember that for 90 days we have had FOID carry in 15 counties. No extra training. No extra anything. And I have yet to hear of any problems, road rage incidents, fights over parking spots, shootouts at Starbucks or anything in those 15 counties.
The court said on page 8:
Again, in the “form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self defense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either.”
So tell me how the state or the Court allows the ban on carry, in effect today, to go on any longer?
He has a point.
* Here is the language for 24-1.6(a)(1)…
Sec. 24-1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm
And here’s (a)(3)(A) …
(3) [Or] One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or handgun, possessed was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the time of the offense
* And here’s the response to the rulings from the Second Amendment Foundation…
he Second Amendment Foundation is applauding the Illinois State Supreme Court, which has unanimous ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not confined to the home and that a state statute regarding aggravated unlawful use of weapons (AUUW) violates the Second Amendment.
In the ruling, written by Justice Robert R. Thomas, the court states, “As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the Second Amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home.”
“This is one more court rejection of claims by anti-gunners that the right to keep and bear arms is somehow confined to the home,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
The case at issue, Illinois v. Alberto Aguilar, dates back to June 12, 2008, slightly more than two weeks prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The case challenged a section of the law that prohibited carrying firearms outside the home that, according to the court, “…amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either.”
The court footnotes that the Illinois General Assembly has enacted the state’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act due to SAF’s victory in Moore v. Madigan, which is cited in today’s ruling. The Act amended the state statute to “allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public.” The court also noted that “Neither the Firearms Concealed Carry Act nor the amended (state) statute is at issue in this case.”
Still, recognition that the AUUW section violated the Second Amendment is significant, Gottlieb said.
“Here we have a state Supreme Court declaring a section of state law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” he said. “That would not have happened without our victories in McDonald and Moore, and it affirms our effort to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”
And yet, yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions received almost no media coverage in Illinois.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:28 am:
Todd, I’ll offer the same advice I offered to Boch.
Head down to Michigan Ave. with your guns and stand up for your rights. If the rabid anti-gun CPD arrests you, you’ll show them in court.
I mean, you take this seriously, right?
I don’t seem to recall folks in Selma waiting around for journalists and bloggers to agree with them, maybe I missed that part of the story. Are your civil rights not as important?
I’m guessing you just don’t have the guts. It explains a lot really, like why you feel the need to carry a gun in the first place.
- JoeInPeoria - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:31 am:
If yesterday’s Illinois Supreme Court had gone the opposite way, I would hazard a guess that there would have been huge media coverage, especially in the Chicago media.
If you agree with my opinion, how would you explain the difference?
- Lobo Y Olla - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:31 am:
“And a growing amount of thinking is it is legal to carry today with a FOID card.”
Good Lord, I agree with Todd.
As of yesterday, we are “over the cliff.” This fall off the cliff scenario will properly right itself when ISP starts pumping out CC cards.
I should also note that Michigan Ave was clear of assault-weapons-toting-citizens last night…
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:37 am:
The Supremes also wrote:
–Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation.–
The meaningful regulation is being implemented, it would seem to me.
If it’s not going fast enough for some, I’d suggest they go back to court, which I think they’ve already done.
- youknowwho - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:40 am:
Um…so can we carry a gun?
- walkinfool - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:43 am:
There night be an assumption is some counties and in some minds that carry was already available for four months — but it’s doubtful that many citizens changed anything during that period. Most are in fact waiting for the state law to be fully implemented. Almost nobody’s actually jumping off that supposed cliff yet.
Support this new law; it was a hard compromise to reach for all. Don’t just take it upon yourself to ignore it.
- Todd - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:49 am:
Word –
Yes we went back to Court. But that does not remove what the Court said yesterday.
“amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either.”
Try to square the two? You have a right, but you have to wait till next year to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?
And your thing about unlimited is a straw man. NRA is not arguing for an unlimited right to carry.
And no one is saying they won’t comply with the structure of the carry law, such as the prohibited places. Our side just wants the respect of the right.
Yet Alderman Burke, thinks he can pee all over the new law and the rights of gun owner, while enjoying his taxpayer funded bodyguards.
- DeKalb Dragon - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:54 am:
The lack of media coverage was surprising. It is not just about being able to carry a gun now. It is about all those people who have convictions for AUUW or have increased sentences for prior AUUW convictions. The statute was declared unconstitutional on its face, meaning it is void ab initio. There will be a storm of 2-1401, post-conviction petitions, and habeas petitions. Courts and State’s Attorneys could be swamped. On the plus side, DOC will have a few less prisoners.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 10:58 am:
Todd,
If you don’t mind me asking when is the next court date for the Shepherd appeal?
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:00 am:
–And your thing about unlimited is a straw man–
I didn’t write it, the Supremes did.
The Supremes decision seems to follow the 7th COA pretty closely.
The 7th, you’ll recall, ruled the state’s blanket ban unconstitutional — then stayed that decision for six months.
So they didn’t have a problem allowing an unconstitutional law on the books for six months while a new law was passed.
In 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supremes ruled separate but equal unconstitutional and ordered school desegregation “with all deliberate speed.”
In 1963, George Wallace was still standing in the school house door.
I don’t there’s obstruction with the c-c bill. It passed with huge majorities. You might want to back a bill to boost funding for implementation.
- Lord Stanley's Cup - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:03 am:
It’s a good thing this isn’t an issue where we’d want as much legal clarity as possible. Good grief.
- bk - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:06 am:
If soldiers move into your house violating the 3rd amendment, how long would you be willing to live with it once the court ruled in your favor. How about any other rights? The State has been found to be violating my rights for a long time.
- Iow level - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:07 am:
“And I have yet to hear of any problems, road rage incidents, fights over parking spots, shootouts at Starbucks or anything in those 15 counties.”
Are those the counties you can drive for miles in and not see anybody?
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:07 am:
@Word
The problem is pretty basic isn’t it.
“A right delayed is a right denied”-MLK
Yes the state has resolved the Denial by creating a process but in that process they have delayed that right for the next 100+ days at least. Isn’t it up to the State now to show how this denial cannot be avoided? There is no question that the right is being denied is there? There are several options the State could embrace in the interim yet have they done so?
- bk - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:14 am:
No one can deny that Quinn is HOSTILE toward any implementation of this right. He will delay through tactics as long as possible. One need only to look at the long delays to get a FOID card. no one is held responsible by the state legislature over these delays. Why will this be any different?
- Anyone Remember? - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:21 am:
@Word -
Thank you. “All deliberate speed” was the US Supreme Court decision in 1954. 15 years later it took another US Supreme Court decision to say “Enough!” If African Americans had to wait for 15 years and 2 US Supreme Court decisions, it seems the CC crowd can wait something less than a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_v._Holmes_County_Board_of_Education
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:26 am:
–Isn’t it up to the State now to show how this denial cannot be avoided? –
It may be, but in my experience courts and judges work with sundials, not stopwatches.
I can’t quite figure out the Shepard appeal, either. The law in question was ruled unconstitutional. It is no longer on the books.
What’s to appeal?
To speed implementation of a constitutional carry, don’t you have to challenge the c-c law that was passed and its implementation process?
- anon 1140 - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:34 am:
Looking at the opinion and the reference Rich provided, it appears rifles and shotguns are no longer required to be transported unloaded and in an enclosed case. Am I reading that correctly?
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:35 am:
@word
I think the reason for the Shepherd appeal, as i see it, is she has not been given relief mandated by the court. While the law has been ruled unconstitutional the new statute is the same in all but name. Granted after it is fully enacted it won’t be the same but to date there is no difference between the old law and the new. Ironically if you are a non resident you now have more rights to carry a firearm than a resident. (Non-residents being able to possess a loaded firearm in their vehicle while a resident is not)
I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a court rule that the infringement is impossible to avoid and must be tolerated for the time being. I’d disagree but it is certainly conceivable.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:41 am:
It should be noted, those of you stating that implementation of the law takes time is missing something that will be (or should be) important to the court…
While there are timelines written into the law for specific milestones the state has not met all the time lines. Such as approval of courses… The state was supposed to start approving courses and publishing them at 60 days. we are now past that and no courses have been approved or published.
as for instructors maybe 12 or so have been approved (but they can’t teach as there are no approved courses).
This inaction to the law that passed that the state is using to say “look, CCW is legal it just takes time” and then showing up in court with statutory dates not being met is going to be a problem.
Again, apply this to any other enumerated right. 4th or 1st amendment… it changes the argument completely.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:42 am:
–I think the reason for the Shepherd appeal, as i see it, is she has not been given relief mandated by the court.–
What relief was mandated by the court? All I recall was that they tossed the old law out, and gave the the state the opportunity to pass a new law.
But they did not require the state to pass a new law. That’s where we got into the discussion of, absent a new law, home rule powers would apply.
- DanL60 - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:50 am:
When my kids used to get vegetables they hated for supper:
- They couldn’t leave the table until the veggies were eaten
- They sullenly pushed them around their plates as long as possible hoping they would disappear, trying to outwait us, or for a dog to appear and eat them
- We have no dog
That is kind of how I see Illinois and CC. Sullenly dragging it out as long as possible.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:52 am:
-What relief was mandated by the court?-
Wouldn’t that relief be the ability to practice the right to carry? Which is not available now. Perhaps relief was the wrong word. Ms. Shepherds rights were infringed prior to the decision and are still infringed after the decision. So for all practical purposes what has changed?? The court as i read it stated you must allow Ms. Shepherd the right to carry as protected by the 2nd Amendment. Can she carry today?
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 11:56 am:
–The State has been found to be violating my rights for a long time. –
And those rights were found, as they hadn’t been before in the history of The Republic, in Heller and McDonald, which weren’t that long ago.
You’ll be happy with the state law in the years to come, as it will be very difficult to dislodge.
The 5-4 Heller and McDonald rulings are a different story. They were quite a departure from stare decisis and I wouldn’t count on future courts being tied too strongly to them.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
–The court as i read it stated you must allow Ms. Shepherd the right to carry as protected by the 2nd Amendment.–
The COA ruled that the state’s blanket prohibition went too far and was unconstitutional. Other than that, they mandated no relief, in my reading, but gave the state six months to pass a new law.
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
=== I’m guessing you just don’t have the guts. It explains a lot really, like why you feel the need to carry a gun in the first place ===
Great way to start off a measured debate on the subject. I noted Todd didn’t even respond to the provocation.
- Todd - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:20 pm:
Mason — 10/3/13
Word — it is a straw man you concoct. You keep tossing out this unlimited quote from the Court as if that is what the gun guys are seeking.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:25 pm:
–Word — it is a straw man you concoct. You keep tossing out this unlimited quote from the Court as if that is what the gun guys are seeking.–
No, just quoting the decision, as you did.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:26 pm:
This is fundamentally a question of time. No one denies that when the full law is kicked in, the courts requirements will be satisfied.
One side argues that’s the end of the story. Nothing else matters, the law has been passed, and relief will come beginning in January.
The other argues that it is wrong for an arbitrary amount of time to pass (a total of 1 year and 1 month since the ruling) before any relief is found, even though two courts have now decided that constitutional rights are being violated.
In a country with 49 states that have conceal carry, with 49 separate models, some of which mirror the so called “wild west” of constitutional carry with no problems, why must rights continue to be violated for over a year?
It would be very interesting to see this on another issue. For example, if marriage equality were to be ruled a fundamental constitutional right by the courts, would a 13 month wait before anyone could get married be considered acceptable?
- Todd - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:35 pm:
OOPPS I misread it it should be STL NOT Mason, my appologies Mason.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
Todd, I don’t see any section in the Code headed “Gun Guy Laws.”
It’s a State of Illinois law and it’s in the interests of all citizens that it be implemented with the limitations and regulations as passed, and as all the courts have recognized as proper.
It’s a free country, you can go to court for anything you want — but I imagine you were around when the bill was being drawn up, too.
The implementation process can’t be a surprise to you.
- GregD - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:40 pm:
Anyone know the status of the Cook County Assault Weapon ban case? Last I heard it was sent back down to the trial court over a year ago….
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:47 pm:
@Word
Let’s dispel with semantics. What the court said is Ms. Shepherd has a right to carry a firearm outside her home as protected by the 2nd amendment correct? Therefore because this right exists and is enshrined in the constitution the State may not prohibit her practice of it with a ban. The court allowed the state to create reasonable restrictions. The States restriction was to require a permit to carry. Since you cannot get a permit until whenever the ISP decides to complete the process, at least 100+ days, what you have is the same ban.
Your argument hangs on semantics. The question really is simple are the 2nd Amendment rights of Ms. Shepherd restored? The answer has to be No. If her rights were violated before they are violated now.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:58 pm:
@Todd
No problem.
If i may ask was there any talk of this conflict when the bill was drafted? I know Phelps original bill had provisions for the administrative time frame. I am curious why that aspect wasn’t dealt with in some way.
- Todd - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 12:58 pm:
Word — rights delayed are rights denied. The 270 day implimentation is not what we wanted. But got stuck with.
you now have Alverez in a sticky problem. All the UUW/AUUW charges or out of staters with carry permits are going to have to be tossed. thousands of people will be seeking to get their records expunged and vacated.
I don;t know of anyone seeking to have an unlimited RKBA as if this is Syria. ALL our side wants is for the right to be recognised and honored like other rights.
Some of the restrictions in the carry law will fall. They are to restrictive just like the Chiraq resteraunt ban will fall.
I agree it’s not an unlimited right. and again no one I know of is arguing for that. But I don’t see the state having unlimited time to apply the law or implament it. You dissagree and feel it’s ok for people to wait 270 days before they will not face a criminal penalty.
we disagree.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
Mason, it’s not a matter of semantics. The court ruled as it ruled.
And you don’t have to speculate as to what it was. Here it is.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry-ban-20121211,0,3364134.htmlpage
- Iow level - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:40 pm:
You’re not pushing for unlimited unrestricted gun ownership? What good are you? I want my freedoms! My rights! To defend myself. You don’t want assault rifle bans. Ok, once we have the right to those, I want a flamethrower…or a tank, to defend myself as the 2nd Amendment gives me
- Iow level - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
As for your dilemma, Todd - maybe if you all joined the National Guard (the militia - which was controlled by the states) being the strict constructionist I am, your problem would be solved?
- RonOglesby - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
ahhhh, more people wanting to re-argue Heller.
- Pacman - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:55 pm:
For what it’s worth the ISP appears to be gearing up as they have jobs posted for implementation of the CC law.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:55 pm:
@Ron
They will always be out there. Look at Roe v. Wade in some circles it is still argued today.
- Iow level - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
@ Mason - shocking, isn’t it? The same people who slam “judicial activism”, run to the courts like no other special interest group we have ever seen.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
@IOW
you seem to be confusing Mason and I with someone… I dont think you hear Mason or I arguing to re-hear Roe…
But then again its a great dog whistle right?
- bloval27 - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:09 pm:
People seem to have a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment,
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The commas are a pause, so when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that means all people have the right.
This whole well regulated militia talk is seperate from the rights of the PEOPLE.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:12 pm:
–ahhhh, more people wanting to re-argue Heller. –
It will be poked and prodded like every other major decision. That’s life in the NFL — especially for 5-4 rulings.
It will also be interpreted differently in the circuits. The Supremes chose not to take up an appeal on the ruling upholding New York’s law.
Scalia thought he had the votes to overturn Roe years back with Planned Parenthood v Casey. He forgot to talk to Justice O’Connor.
Roe is under constant attack in many states, and in some states Roe has no meaning at all for women seeking an abortion.
You’ll be happy with the Illinois law. It’s set, and not subject to the vagaries of the courts.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:17 pm:
@IOW
Actually what i find amazing is people who find Roe to be rock solid but think Heller is activism.
I disagree with Roe. However I accept that as much as i dislike it it is the law of the land. That sir is what you will have to learn to accept with Heller.
- Libertyvilles Finest - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
All of this means, what? Fewer legal challenges in court and a reaffirmation of what the GA did in July. My friend applied for a FOID card last month. I told her it would take months. She got it in 2 weeks. The ISP is working hard on this. I can wait for my license. Let’s let them take the time to get it right when we apply.
- Anyone Remember? - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
@low level
Perhaps this has them confused?
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
I’m sorry but I get irritated with these continuing arguments on this subject. The law has been passed. But that still doesn’t satisfy some of you. You choose to continue to complain that it is taking a bit of time to get the thing implemented. Yes, I know that it has been clearly determined that a right was being violated. I never doubted that and I fully agree with the ruling. But this constant whining about rights being infringed still is just nonsense in my opinion. People need to take a breath and have a bit more patience.
And before anybody says it, I don’t buy for one bit the argument that implementation is being purposely delayed. I have every confidence it’s a manpower problem. That should be your next fight - getting the state to allocate appropriate resources to this program.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:26 pm:
==Actually what i find amazing is people who find Roe to be rock solid but think Heller is activism.==
Judicial activism is defined by whether somebody agrees with a decision or not. If you agree with a decision the Court is doing a great job. If not the Court is a bunch of activist jerks.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:27 pm:
@Demo
Pretty much nailed it.
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
@Word
I think the two of us will find out which one of us is right sometime after October when the 7th looks at the Shepherd v. Madigan appeal. I see 3 possible outcomes.
a. Judge Stiehl is right (and you sir by extension) there is no standing and a new suit must be filed.
b. The 7th rules the state is infringing but cannot avoid the infringement. Hopefully giving a date the state must have system up by.
c. The 7th allows some sort of carry until the original process is complete.
Myself i suspect something around #2.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:34 pm:
–Judicial activism is defined by whether somebody agrees with a decision or not.–
There’s been judicial activism ever since John Marshall stuck it to his cousin Thomas Jefferson when he asserted the concept of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
You won’t find anywhere in the Constitution the power for the Supreme Court — or any court — to strike down laws. “Original Intent” justices like Scalia don’t have a problem with that.
- Bill Wick - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:35 pm:
=== militia ===
Still stuck on militia?
- Mason born - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:40 pm:
@Demo
I think the concern at least for me is to avoid a delay whether intentional or unintentional. If the 7th decides that a delay is an infringement then it becomes harder to sweep funds setup for implementation or other incindental delay. Quinn as top administrator could care less if this is completed in January or January 2018 another decision might change that.
- Libertyvilles Finest - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
@Demoralized
I hear ya! I agree
- Todd - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
Low — i lobby about things that go bang, not boom. So no on the semi-auto bans, and yes on regulations for things towed by a jeep.. . .
You’re not pushing for unlimited unrestricted gun ownership? What good are you? I want my freedoms! My rights! To defend myself. You don’t want assault rifle bans. Ok, once we have the right to those, I want a flamethrower…or a tank, to defend myself as the 2nd Amendment gives me
As for that malitia thing, the court dealt with that in Heller, it denotes a purpose, but does not determine the scope of the right as applied to the people. Asked and answered. Try some other worn out gun controllers arguement
- Confused - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 4:21 pm:
“or a tank, to defend myself as the 2nd Amendment gives me”
Well, there is no law prohibiting you from buying a tank. If you want one, find one on ebay (they are there occasionally). You can also own a jet fighter - they are on sale all the time in Trade-a-Plane.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
@Mason:
I think we all knew that this entire thing was going to be a mess with or without a law. I hate it when we meet expectations.
- Iow level - Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 4:27 pm:
As it is a law that has been passed, and the court has dealt with it, using your arguments- I look forward to when the Affordable Care Act will be fully implemented and not subject to “worn out arguments.”
(Very sorry to go off topic, Rich, but the irony in what some of these folks say is just amazing to me. Everyone have a good weekend)