Monday, June 28, 2010

McDonald v. Chicago decision is in. So what?

The decision is here.

So, I have skimmed it. We get incorporation, but -- a la Heller -- Alito assures the restrictionists they can still play games WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The Brady Bunch press release hit hard on THAT, you may be assured. So hold the hosannahs and hallelujahs. The fight goes on.


Toaster 802 said...

What part of "shall not infringe" do these people not understand?

Another phyrric victory. Like we the people expect any different...

Pat H. said...

One of the hardest things I have to do in explaining the concept of intrinsic rights is to convince folks that they have rights as a result of their existence as a human being.

With regard to the Second Amendment, it is a demand upon the US government, and before today arguably upon the state and local government from the day it was written, to protect the right to own weapons with which to defend the intrinsic right of self defense.

As usual, the SCOTUS treated the Second Amendment as a grant of power from the US government to the people, one which is restrictable as necessary by any government.

It is clear that until we rid ourselves of this government it will continue to work to codify its power to restrict rights, particularly now that the Kagan will replace Stevens in the Gang of Four Freedom Haters on the court.

All should remember that these restrictions upon rights began with Chief Justice John Marshall, the sleazy justice who defined the court's power to do virtually anything it wants to do for all of his 34 years on the court. It's really too bad he wasn't redacted before his first year was completed.

Anonymous said...

On the upside, the AP pictures of the riflemen at the RTC rally looking across the Potomac to the Capitol are the image of the day online for the story.

...buzzing in their heads....

Anonymous said...

Baby steps. We spent generations going in the opposite direction. Now we are swinging back at a time when any reestablishment of certain basic rights is a good thing.

Also remember, this is perspective. To you it may not go far enough. To the left somebody just jammed a sharp stick in their eye!


Have fun, grab a beer, drive to Walmart to see if they have any sales on turkey stuff (Like I do, God I love Alabama Walmarts! In Florida it's beach chairs and no hunting gear hardly at all.. Relax for a moment realizing somewhere out there is a leftie thinking he's walking dead now that all the country is going to go armed, ESPECIALLY those crazy rednecks.

What they don't realize is we have been armed all along. And will remain so. It was Jefferson's wish and one I intend to honor.

Anonymous said...

Never ask permission. Never registeer a firearm. Under any circumstance, for any reason.

Anonymous said...

This fight is far from over. Especially given that the decision was 5-4 and not 9-0. The anti's will continue harrassment of our rights until they are stopped cold. The 2nd has been there for how many years and that hasn't stopped them or haters of liberty from infringing to date. No simple SCOTUS decision will stop them. Heck it didn't in DC.'-Sure, you can have a gun if you pay a fee, fill out an application with all your personal info, submit to an extensive background check and register your gun and then wait for a while...' Infringement, plain and simple.

Bob Katt

Anonymous said...

Last August I won a Federal 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech lawsuit against my local county government. The suit resulted from me politely objecting to the county council, during their public meeting, breaking county and state law by the manner in which they were stealing taxpayer money. They threw me out of the meeting and ordered me arrested.

Subsequently, upon federal trial a jury ruled unanimously that my civil rights were violated. What happened next ? Upon the county's appeal the Federal judge OVERTURNED the jury verdict citing the jury, in essence, didn't know what they were doing ! I'm now on appeal to federal circuit court.

My point is....if for one minute anyone believes this government is not tyrannical, they are simply fooling them self. Judges are NOT about justice. They're about putting the boots to the common citizen and keeping the status quo of government power, uber alles, in place.

The weasels of the SCOTUS are just one group of government tyrants on a long list of scoundrels within every level of government.

Once again it will be up to the 3% to bring back liberty to this country. We all need to keep our powder dry.


spitnyri said...

This is all just semantics..

No one has yet been able to show me the part of the Constitution that grants the responsibility, power or authority to SCOTUS to interpret or define the very document thats sole purpose was to restrict its authority.. ya' cant because it doesnt exist.. this whole concept of SCOTUS making decisions oabout what the Constitution means is built upon the ignorance of the sheeple and their reliance on being managed.

It doesnt matter what they decide, the Constitution speaks for itself quite well.

Anonymous said...

Round two beings.

Jim in NJ said...

What makes me furious is the fact that there is even a question over the "individual" right of a person to own a gun. Every other amendment in the Bill of Rights is an individual one, and the opposition constantly argues that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective" right. No, why would the Founders make EVERY other right in the bill an individual one except the 2nd? It is just another example of politicians bastardizing the Constitution to try and make it a "living" document.

rexxhead said...

Aw, crap, they didn't take my suggestion.

Well, perhaps next time...

Anonymous said...

Continue to purchase your firearms USED, and privately. No registration.

B Woodman

Dakota said...

Bah .... I could care less what these over paid over glorified asses say ... what they rule .... what ordinances they pass .... go ahead and pass them you tyrant bastards!!!

I do not give a shit .... I will not comply with your chicken shit agenda ..... period!!!!

sofa said...

While saying the 2nd Amendment exists, they also asserted that... If you aren't dead, in jail, or in financial ruin by trying to publicly keep and bear arms -Then today's SCOTUS acknowledged your right to beg lawyer to help you beg a court to help you appeal to beg SCOTUS again.

Four justices made themselves repugnant to the Constitution, invalidating themselves.

King George had a similar confusion over inalienable rights...

Dennis308 said...

After 77+/- years of more and more gun control this is a step in the right direction,albeit a small step but none the less in the right direction. It does not follow ¨Shall Not Be Infringed¨ which is what the Second Amendment states, and also what it means.
And so although, No this decision does not go far enough in clarifying The Second it is about the most one could expect from a Branch of Today's Treasonous Government.

SCOTUS mentions self defence and they Also(important note)mention the roll of Arms and the Intent of the Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment ¨is¨ to keep Government from becoming a Tyrannical Force upon the Citizens of The United States. They sited the Anti-Federalist Papers and the History of The Constitution,as their basis in the conclusion of The Court.

They(scotus)also mention the Militias. The entire Document is over 200 pages in length,and for me will take some to study.Read the document for yourselves and I believe you will see some important points of interests in this decision.And possible tools in tomorrows battles.

And so if we want more than this Gentleman then I recommend that, We gather our Armies and go to War and Reclaim Our God Given Rights. Name the time and the place where we start and I will be there with you.

But until we are ready to do that we take this Small Victory and plan our next move accordingly.


jdege said...

"We get incorporation, but -- a la Heller -- Alito assures the restrictionists they can still play games WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."

I find Alito's language is less troubling than that in Heller:

Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights. “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 64). This conclusion is no more remarkable with respect to the Second Amendment than it is with respect to all the other limitations on state power found in the Constitution.

Finally, JUSTICE BREYER is incorrect that incorporation will require judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions and thus to make difficult empirical judgments in an area in which they lack expertise. As we have noted, while his opinion in Heller recommended an interest-balancing test, the Court specifically rejected that suggestion. See supra, at 38–39. “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 62–63).

skybill said...

Hi Mike,
Funny how that goes? deaddogdaily starts his deathyap about more infringement. So what? There are enough guns to go around for everyone and Chitown is only Chitown. When the shooting starts, will the anti's have any hardware?? Is Daily a hypocrite and carry a "pocket piece??" How many anti's do??


PS, Oh if only for the simple humor of Jake and Elwood on their,"Mission from God!!"

Anonymous said...


I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right ... AND a collective right:

Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Now, note that Hamilton says: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Hamilton could have very well said: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

The same can be said for religion.

Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Hamilton was not really "anti-Bill of Rights." His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: "... furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they ... "might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."

If it is not restricted by the Constitution ... nor delegated by the same ... there is absolutely no power.

Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?

Unfortunately, Hamilton's worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.

C. Cope

The Bill of Rights confers no powers to the federal government or the States. Nor does it offer any plausible pretense to usurp to claim any power except by men who abuse their authority.

There is only one way for the States and the federal government to opt out of the 2nd amendment ... repeal it. And good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Well folks, the constituion would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. And it was the STATES that demanded those Bill of Rights be added to the constitution. WIthin those 10 amendments, is the 2nd amendment. The States did not say, "We want the Bill of Rights added to the constitution, but we reserve the right to ignore those 10 amendments at anytime in the future." Neither did the States say, " Any State that enters the Union from henceforth has the right to ignore the Bill of Rights." Neither did they say, "The federal government has the option to ignore the Bill of Rights at any time in the future."

Granted, there were only 13 States at the time the constitution was ratified, but that does not mean that every State that enters the Union from then on can ignore the Bill of Rights. Those Bill of Rights, including the constitution, are binding on every State that entered the Union since the inception of the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and no territory can enter the Union without accepting the constitution and swearing allegiance to it.

I am amazed at the stupidity of the Supreme Court Morons. I am amazed at the lawyers that seem to not be able to make a case for the 2nd amendment. We will let Hamilton make the case. And we will let the States eat shit that they can not comprehend that it WAS the States themselves that put themselves in the predicament that they are in. If the States had not demanded that the Bill of Rights be added to the constitution, then the States themselves would have a case that they may do whatever they want concerning arms within their own State. And even if that was the case, the federal governent STILL would not be able to dictate to the States what they could and could not do concerning arms within the States, because the constitution, even without the Bill of Rights, confers no power to do so.

So, it is safe to say that the States AND the feds are just plain screwed and can eat shit.


Anonymous said...


The 10th amendment does confer power to the States.

But again, the 2nd amendment is a creature of the State when ratified and is binding on the States in the Union as well as the feds.

Defender said...

Was that Mr. McDonald being interviewed by John Stossel before the ruling? Stossel asked, in the absence of a positive outcome, whether he would ever acquire a gun illegally. McDonald said no.
I hope that was for public consumption, or does he choose slavery after all?
Daley has already promised not to honor the ruling, and the city council has a backup plan of all kinds of fees and regs. In the end, it's like being an abolitionist in the 1800s or a protector of Jews in the 1940s. Do what's right even if it's prohibited by law, or be less than a sovereign citizen and less than a human being.

Happy D said...

Like with cigarettes roll your own! Then cash them on government land. Buy old military bolt actions and turn them into Jeff Cooper type scout rifles. Or full on Sniper Rifles.
If you are old and on your way out buy lots of guns and then resell them at no profit. The records die with you.
Keep Grandpas old gun in good repair and know how to use it!
Fix old guns.
Read your Vanderboegh, Ross, Holmes, and Luty.

Johnny said...

IMHO, we're at a critical juncture in history... we really do live in interesting times. The accelerating police state, not simply in America but around the world, is racing against a generalized public awakening to that same police state and the corrupting influence of the international bankers who, behind the scenes, in reality control public policy.

The immediate worry, which has been voiced by Guy Smith of, is that this judgment can easily be used against gun owners. Now it can be claimed by gun grabbers that confiscation is off the table they'll push for gun registration. Then, when guns are registered, the Federal Courts will reverse their rulings on gun rights and all the registered guns will be rounded up.

Also, the issue of ammo restrictions is going to come back with a vengeance.

Plus, it's all cant and nonsense until you can walk into a shop and, as a US citizen, buy a full-auto M16 or M4 for use as a member of the unorganized militia.

Anonymous said...

I don't think our reaction really needs to be "So What." What needs to happen, now that there is no question that Chicagoans are absolutely protected in their natural rights to possess handguns to defend themselves?

The requirement is to assure that every infringement of those rights that results in harm to a city dweller will carry with it a substantial monetary penalty imposed on Daley or the city council as individuals. Cause and effect ought to be clearly demonstrable and the costs of damages have been established by many lawsuits in the past.

That Daley's intentions are premeditated wouldn't be subject to question when his published remarks are introduced.

Let tham end their disgraceful days in the Cook County Poor Farm.

straightarrow said...

the greatest harm done by this decision is the redefinition of the "core principle"/"central component" of the Second Amendment.

Even in the face of Alito's acknowledgement of the history of the 2nd and the real reason for its addition to the bill of rights, he goes ahead and erroneously states the "central component" is self-defense. That he knew the history and reasoning behind the ratification of the amendment and then misstated it "core principle" shows that this was merely a dog and pony show intended to quell civil unrest while exerting no real limiting factors on infringements of that which "...shall not be infringed."

Real and severe physical harm visited upon the usurpers is the only thing that will restore this republic. Anything short of that is viewed by them, no matter how condemning of their actions, is viewed as merely an opportunity to try a different tactic in pursuit of their goal of absolute power.

Fear of real world physical reprisal is the only thing that will disabuse them of their view that each minor setback is simply another opportunity and that they must eventually win if they do not flag.

Unfortunately for that fear to be present it will be necessary to supply them with examples of real world physical reprisal against their fellow travelers. Not pretty, not desirable, not something to enjoy, but necessary. If we are never going to do so, ok, let's quit posing and just bow down now and avoid all the stress of giving a damn.

spitnyri said...

What everyone so far has ignored is that SCOTUS is subordinate to the people as are the other branches of govt. They are NOT an entity unto themselves. They are co-equal UNDER the Constitution.. as the ultimate power in this Republic we have the final decision even over SCOTUS.

Their IlLEGAL rulings are nullified by the document that protects us from them and the rights we maintain as free men.