Chicago gun ban

[spanko]

How in the world can there be any dissenting vote from the supreme court on our constitutional right to bear arms?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...t-ruling_N.htm

 

[reefraff]

What troubles me is that toad Obama appointed to the court testified before the Senate that she felt the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to carry then votes this way. If nothing else we know she's a liar as well as a bigot.

 

[spanko]

Can't say you did not see that coming can you Reef? Four dissenting opinions. Lord help us.

 

[spanko]

I am now of the opinion anyone holding a political office that has taken an oath to uphold the constitution (as it is written, not their interpretation of it) and then violates that oath should be hanged by the neck until dead for treason.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3282661
Can't say you did not see that coming can you Reef? Four dissenting opinions. Lord help us.
I can hope can't I? I thought perhaps a "wise latina" as she put it, would be an honest one as well.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3282656
What troubles me is that toad Obama appointed to the court testified before the Senate that she felt the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to carry then votes this way. If nothing else we know she's a liar as well as a bigot.
Interesting... I remember her saying that now but I didn't put it together until I read this.

 

[flower]

Chicago is a war zone, something needs to be done, I think that is why she voted as she did.
However I must agree that a gun ban just means that honest law abiding people who register their guns will be the ones that follow the gun laws. Law abiding citizens are not the ones shooting the little kids by mistake, while the gangs with illegal nonregistered guns run amuck continuing to do just as they have been, making Chicago a war zone. What a mess.

 

[deejeff442]

well flower i know we have had our differences but i agree with you on this one 100%
apparently these three quarter retarded politicians think criminals will obey the law.
politicians are so out of touch they should be shot by a criminal and have a security without guns.maybe they then will see what our right to bear arms meant.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3282698

Chicago is a war zone, something needs to be done, I think that is why she voted as she did.
.
And that right there is the problem. Just because she thinks there is a problem it doesn't matter. For good or bad her ONLY duty is to make sure the constitution is being followed. The Dredd Scott decision is a prime example of this. As obscene as it might seem the court made the right decision because it followed what was written in the constitution. If these judges want to make law they need to run for Congress.

 

[aw2x3]

The gun ban, in Chicago, is nothing new. It's been in effect for at least the past 10 years.
It has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[spanko]

I don't think anybody said it had anything to do with Obama other than his first appointee to the supreme court. The thread is about the 4 justices giving dissenting opinions. His appointee being one of them, after she said differently during her hearings to be elevated to justice.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by AW2x3
http:///forum/post/3282779
The gun ban, in Chicago, is nothing new. It's been in effect for at least the past 10 years.
It has nothing to do with Obama.
It does when he appoints the Black Robe wearing legislators.......
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It don't get no plainer.
"My cold dead hands"
The only measure the Justices need is the Constiution, as written, unless amended. No foreign law, no fairness, in reality no compassion except for the document.

 

[spanko]

Gonna throw this out there for discussion. What about a states right to sovereignty? Should the federal government be making decisions for the states based on a one size fits all law? Do you think the founding fathers would agree with the supreme court infringing on states rights? Would it then be the citizens of that state to vote out the people that put in the law banning the guns, or decide to move somewhere else if the law was not overturned?
Article 3
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
So I am not reading there that the supreme court has jurisdiction over a dispute between the state and citizens of that state. Therefore would this be a matter to be adjudicated within the state itself?
State sovereignty is a grand experiment in which each state enacts laws and such and sees what works. Then each other state can either adopt or not those things that are fit for their citizens. This allows the state to stand on it's own and live or die via the laws they enact, and for the citizenry to move about the United States to where their own beliefs are adhered to.
Again open for discussion.

 

[reefraff]

States cannot create laws the run afoul of the US Constitution. The 10 amendment which is largely ignored states that powers not specifically given to the feds, nor prohibited by the constitution can be left up to state or local government. The constitution does indeed prohibit the infringement of the right to keep and bare arms.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3283151
States cannot create laws the run afoul of the US Constitution. The 10 amendment which is largely ignored states that powers not specifically given to the feds, nor prohibited by the constitution can be left up to state or local government. The constitution does indeed prohibit the infringement of the right to keep and bare arms.

Exactly, the States function as a federation of independant organizations with the Constitution defining the limits of the body controlling the federation ( fed gov't). We all have to play by those basic, limited rules. That's what keeps slavery from coming back in the States.
As much as Pres. Obama hates it ( and he has said as much) the Constitution limits the feds, and favors the States, but the States still have to follow the powers given to the feds.