March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
.what we should be doing instead of ending delays is ending the foid program. it is a burdensome process that hinders our Creator given right to self defense affirmed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment. this burden is also applied through taxes on firearms and ammunition and reloading supplies. this is unconstitutional! arms, in the basest and most general context and meaning is “weapons and supplies for those weapons.”

theere is a provision t orepeal the FOID and it is high time it is done. all of our insf is already in the states database. the state issues ids and dl’salready. the only reason there should be a foid issued is to a politician to track them.

In the above… Joe is right… How to repeal the FOID program..

I did indeed omit the word “never” from that sentence. I’m pretty sure that error cropped up when I reworded the final paragraph right before I sent it.

Of all the typos possible, that is certainly an unfortunate one. However, the next portion of the sentence (”since harming another human is the last thing I would ever wish to do”) seems to make clear my intended meaning.

But hank you though for pointing out that typo, and do let me know about any others that you see. While I try to avoid them, I’m sure that with over 300,000 words on this website, I’ve got a few typos.

By the way, you typoed the first word in your comment

“While I sincerely hope that I’m forced to use a firearm in self defense, since harming another human is the last thing I would ever wish to do, I do rest easier knowing that I would not be a defenseless crime victim.”

I think you meant to have a “Not” in that first part.

But, every win against gun control is a step in the right direction and makes your individual chance of winning better.

We have to take this one step at a time.

All of this is speculation. The case is not decided. And yes, there is a two edged sword here, by forcing states and municipalities to obey the 2nd Amendment, it also puts them under the federal interpretation of the amendment in some circumstances. However, this is all speculation at this point.

Listen, this part of that incrementalism–hacking at the limbs of the dragon–I talked about. There is not going to be a ruling that comes out and says “Felons can have their guns”. Ok? But, with each pro-2nd Amendment ruling, our individual cases strengthen.

Let’s wait and see what the ruling is, ok? This may take until June or so.

Whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

This is one that old Grit (aka Doug) will be interested in, no doubt. While there are many who will undoubtedly fear what the high court may rule, whatever it may rule, it is not something that I, myself, fear, nor should gun owners fear that which is to come from this ruling.

Those who are strong adherents to gun control are about to receive the judicial equivalent of a sledgehammer being taken to their pet peeve of an issue. Because the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right (and I have said such for many years), all forms of control or restraint upon guns will not cease to exist. But, that a right is not absolute does not mean that it is not a broad – or even very broad – right.

Let us assume, however, the proverbial worst. Well, there’s not really any point in that, since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hell case of recent vintage. But, that considered, let us assume that the Supreme Court decides to not incorporate the the Second Amendment, either through selective incorporation doctrine or through wholly incorporating the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights against the States.

What would happen, under such an unlikely and improbable scenario, is that gun owners and right to keep and bear arms supporters (not all of which actually own or use guns, themselves) would become politically ignited – and it would then bear its own fruit going forward. The end result would likely be a constitutional amendment to make the right to keep and bear arms enforceable against the States. It would take some time, but political fury would erupt, and such political fury would have political consequences.

In reading through some of the briefs filed by various parties in the McDonald versus Chicago case, it would appear that the critical question will be less whether the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment will be incorporated by the United States Supreme Court using McDonald versus Chicago as the vehicle for doing such, than whether such will be accomplished using either the Privileges and Immunities clause or the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Will it be incorporated via a continuation of the selective incorporation doctrine? Or will the High Court opt to go with more of a total incorporation scheme. One of my personal favorite passages from the collection of briefs filed in this case is, “Nothing in the text or history of the Fourteenth Amendment points to selective incorporation of Privileges or Immunities.”

In response to the City of Chicago’s and Village of Oak Park’s Brief for Respondents in Opposition to Certiorari, those entities argued at one point in their brief about States having reliance interests. The opposing argument by McDonald (and his attorneys) was succinctly stated, “States have no legally cognizable reliance interests in violating constitutional rights.”

Chicago and Oak Park are going to lose this case. The Supreme Court is going to sharply rein them in. In the process of doing so, many state and local governments will be reined in, too. This is something that Grit is likely to see in his life time.

And Obama? Well, you see, my friends, the Supreme Court is going to deal with the issue for President Obama. Then, Obama doesn’t have to fret over pissing off gun owners with gun control legislation.

What a lot of gun owners will not like, if the Supreme Court conducts an extensive analysis of the Privileges and Immunities clause, and using that as the mechanism (or one of the mechanisms) for incorporating the right to keep and bear arms against the States, will be some non-gun-related rulings that will eventually come down from the Supreme Court in the years to come, and which would be based in the Privileges and Immunities clause.

But, such is life and such is law.

Rest easy, for the Supreme Court will enforce the right to keep and bear arms against the States. That much is a given, from my perspective. However, the Privileges and Immunities clause looms in the background, in the shadows of history, like a legal Titan about to have its day.

Personally, I would find that to be a very satisfying thing. Hey varg:what do you think of this article?How can that mess link us to anything?upon reading that article i also read this in another article:(MCDONALD VS.CHICAGO)WHICH WILL LIKELY RESULT IN LOCAL BANS ON FIREARMS OWNERSHIP OR RESTRICTIONS,NO DIFFERENT THAN BANS ALSO BEING DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL,,,WHERE IS THAT HEADED VARG????……..J.GIBBS

As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (”friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress. And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states-as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments. This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans-not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.

The brief describes Congress’s debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and points out the many occasions—from 1866 to 2005—when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a right of all Americans, and taken action to protect that right against actions such as gun confiscation and predatory lawsuits. It also makes the case for Congress’s interest (under its constitutional war powers) in preserving an armed citizenry as part of America’s national defense.

When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens. And it did in the historic Heller case last year when 55 Senators and 250 Representatives signed an amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right. Now every Senator and Congressman who supports the rights of all Americans should step forward to be heard by signing this brief in the McDonald case.

The brief must be filed within the week, so we need your immediate help! On Monday through Thursday, please call your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

P.S. an NRA sticker on your door is better than an ADT sticker when it comes to crime deterance.