The Countdown to McDonald v. Chicago

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.
Here it is, the Countdown to one of the most important 2nd Amendment Cases in history.

The decision won't end gun control, nor end the infringement of the 2nd Amendment, but hopefully it will be a solid base to defend the 2nd Amendment from and help launch successful pro-2nd Amendment lawsuits and cases while stopping Anti-2nd Amendment ones.


There will be many more lawsuits and cases after this, but this is a pivotal moment in American history. Public opinion is very important and having the Supreme Court of the United States state that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states will be very helpful in that aspect. Politicians will most likely be less likely to push for restrictions on the 2nd Amendment if they know that the people (taxpayers/voters) do no support it.


The McDonald v. Chicago decision is less then a week away.



I'm getting pretty excited.

.
 
Politicians will most likely be less likely to push for restrictions on the 2nd Amendment if they know that the people (taxpayers/voters) do no support it.
Click to expand...

Most people don't pay any attention to what the SCOTUS does. McDonald won't be on the evening news, in your local paper and many gun owners will have no idea what it's about.

We will get this jerk to comment on it, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STwsbUwcO4U&NR=1
 
To clarify Quites calendar, the SC also has and does deliver opinions on Thursdays not just Mondays, this week being an example.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

is a good site for details and analysis on SC news, and decisions.
 
Heller was Guadalcanal. It stopped them in their tracks and proved they could be beaten, and badly.

McDonald will be New Guinea. It'll start the slow, inevitable process of rolling them back, leading to their final destruction. Like New Guinea, it'll also spotlight all of their self-inflicted vulnerabilities, none of which they'll remedy, out of arrogance.
 
Heller was all over the news. I dont know why rm thinks McDonald wont be talked about anywhere.
Click to expand...

Heller was the sort of decision that the morons in the MSM can present to the morons who still watch them, in a moronic 2-second soundbite, dressed up with some anti-gun sensationalism in some cases.

McDonald involves slightly more complexity, is less sensational, and less groundbreaking on its face, though in reality it might have more impact than Heller. Still, the average person, who has no real understanding of our government, would assume that Heller already struck down Chicago's laws.

Now it may be widely discussed, to be sure. However, I think that it might not be.
 
Last edited:
Now it may be widely discussed, to be sure. However, I think that is might not be.
Click to expand...
It's more likely that Rosie O'Donnell will become anorexic and Josh Sugarmann give up lying than that McDonald WON'T be talked about, A LOT.
 
The question is, what will Rosie O'Donnell say about it?

Does she have any audience left? If so, can they understand what the doctrine of "substantive due process" is?
 
This will answer the 3rd of the Holy Quad of SCOTUS 2A questions


Q1: To whom does the right of arms apply?
A: Peacable/sane citizens

Q2: What arms are protected?
A: Those in common use which can contribute to the collective defense

Q3: Does 2A apply to the states?
A: Pending...probably yes.

Q4: What constitutes "infringement"?
A: Yet to be posed.



I honestly thought I would never see any of these answers in my lifetime.
 
It just won't be talked about for long on there.
Click to expand...
Given that it will be the basis for and catalyst of dozens if not hundreds more lawsuits, the odds of it not being talked about "for long" are virtually NIL.

Have we stopped talking about Brown v. Board of Education?
 
Have we stopped talking about Brown v. Board of Education?
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much, unless you teach High School History.

If this will be the catalyst of and basis for other lawsuits, I'm going to guess that these lawsuits might get more coverage. "News" is pretty shallow stuff.
 
.
I think this will be defined as the Turning Point in the 2nd Amendment battle.



It will not only be hard for politicians and other anti-2nd Amendment folks to win their arguments it will be hard for them to win future battles in the courtroom.



I also think any McDonald v. Chicago in the news media will be quickly pushed aside for news stories like where Lady Gaga is going to watch the next baseball game from.

.
 
Deanimator, you have quite a high opinion of yourself, don't you?

Personally, I've found few non-students who are animated by a discussion of Brown who aren't also a bit too excited about the white sale at Sears, where they pick up their new wardrobes for meetings... For everyone else, the decision 66 years ago is a "given". There's just not much controversy there, and if there's anything people might occasionally discuss, it's Plessey, which is far more difficult to understand from the modern vantage point.

The fact is, the interesting people I know don't spend a lot of time discussing Brown vs. Board of Education. In fact, I can't recall such a conversation having ever taken place.
 
Last edited:
Come to think of it, Heller doesn't get a lot of discussion, either. The majority of Americans (something like 3/4) already believed that the 2nd means what Heller affirmed, so the decision wasn't much of a shocker to the layperson.

Kelo and Raich get more discussion, because they go AGAINST what the majority of Americans believe about private property, privacy, especially post-Roe, and the meaning of "interstate commerce."

See, while Heller was a big deal, the decision itself was a "no, duh" to the average person not involved in RKBA activism. I figure that this will be similar. The MSM might try hyping it up as some horrific evil, but that didn't work with Heller. Real people are not surprised, nor upset, by the decision. Don't mistake the talking heads on TV, telling us what we are supposed to be upset about, with actual people who have real interests and conversations.
 
Last edited:
Real people are not surprised, nor upset, by the decision.
Click to expand...

In anything, it prompted the fence sitters, and those who deffered to the pseudo-authoritative pronouncement that 2A was a collective/militia thing to feel safe enough to jump off the fence onto the side of individual rights.

If I'm not mistaken, polls post Heller have shown an overall growth in the popular belief of individual arms. (Though Katrina and Obama probably have a lot to do with that too)
 
Conversations are driven by controversy.

Otherwise, you get something like:

"So, how 'bout that Heller decision, affirming that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms?"

"Yup. That's what the 2nd Amendment always said. Hey, do you think that thunderstorm will blow through, so we can hike up and take the kids fishing, finally?"
 
Deanimator, you have quite a high opinion of yourself, don't you?
Click to expand...
And justifiably so.

Personally, I've found few non-students who are animated by a discussion of Brown who aren't also a bit too excited about the white sale at Sears, where they pick up their new wardrobes for meetings...
Click to expand...
As I said, we obviously move in different circles.

You and your friends are perfectly free to talk about "American Idol", sports, and the "Saw" series of films.

My friends and I will continue to discuss 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment issues, self-defense law, Chinese policy regarding North Korea and the lessons of the Battle of Nomonhan.

You have no duty to talk about things which interest me.
You don't even have a duty to talk about things which would interest an educated person AT ALL.
 
To me, the biggest problem is,
WHAT IS AN ARM?

I am afraid that it will eventually trigger a new amendment limiting the scope of "arms" in the 2nd.
I would prefer the Supreme Court to copy the arms definition that Montana & Tennessee used in their firearm protection acts.
 
Last edited:
Deanimator, I hope you are seeking professional help, and not because you don't chat about sports or American Idol, neither of which subjects interest me, either. Your view of yourself vis-a-vis the rest of the world appears to be grossly distorted. That would be true even if you think you're being funny.

Or maybe you could run for President -- but I don't think our country will make THAT mistake again for another few Presidential terms. Hard to say, though.
 
Last edited:
husbandofaromanian:

"What is an arm" was covered in Heller, by the so called "Heller test". It's a two pronged test that requires "in common use" and "can contribute to common defense".

The test excludes machine guns, and possibly other things like SBS and SBR. It includes handguns and autoloaders, and although not specifically mentioned, the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.

The test was wholly invented by Alan Gura, who somewhat illicitly joined unrelated clauses in Miller, because he recognized and acted on the insight that this court would never validate a 2nd with machine guns in it.

The situation of machine guns being not in "common use" exists entirely *because* of the 1934 NFA and 1986 FOPA, which would probably not pass strict scrutiny of the original text.

Future legal actions will be needed to fix that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Will McDonald v. Chicago affect CCW or Open Carry
Replies
7
Views
942
bushmaster1313
B
U
  • Locked
Bigger win: Heller or McDonald?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Librarian
Librarian
U
  • Locked
Is Remanding McDonald v. Chicago less powerful then Over-turning it?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
U
  • Locked
Time frame for effects of McDonald v. Chicago Decision?
Replies
3
Views
561
natman
N
Y
  • Locked
ya
Replies
0
Views
258
yenchisks
Y
Back
Top