I sure hope he wins.

I sure hope he doesn't wear that hat to court.

If the SCOTUS makes a decision Obama doesn't like, I an already imagine him tearing into the court on his next SOTU.

For a supposed constitutional scholar, Obama doesn't know much. In which of the 57 states did he study the Constitution?

little o dosen't give a shit about the constitution. There are some repubs that don't either.

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet
because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the
6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because
I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st
Amendment, and I can only be quiet."
-Myhr Lyle

"If someone gets into your house, which would you
rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call
the police if you want, and they'll get there, and
they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they
can't get there in time to save your life. The first
line of defense is you."
-Tom Palmer, Cato Institute, 20/20 TV interview
(he showed a mugger his handgun & the mugger fled!)

"The concept of gun control involves the preposterous
idea that people cannot be trusted enough to own guns,
but at the same time, they can be trusted enough that
YOU don't need one. This logic only applies if you
aren't subject to the same laws as the peasants.
Therefore, gun control has nothing to do with guns,
it is about control."
-chopinbloc, posted in response to an ABC News story
regarding "assault weapons" bans, 02-26-2009

...etc.

little o dosen't give a shit about the constitution. There are some repubs that don't either.

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-01 11:30 AM

This has a lot to do with Mayor Daley and Oak Park's, anti-gun policies than it does with President Obama.

A win for McDonald, will mean taking a lot of wind out of the Machine Democrat's sails down in Springfield also.

The Chicago area along with NYC and DC have been the gun control capitals of the US. They also have some of the highest crime rates in the US.

The governbments in the US need to get the message that the 2nd amendment exists for the people, not the government.

The second amendment used to say:

"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 activist conservative judges on the USSC changed it to:

"Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as government sees fit."

They just didn't change the words.

All rights come from the government.

Who's seen Gran Torino? :-D

Way to go! Hang in there granpa! The FBI will over react and kill you soon enough.

Member and Sniper, proof book learn'n hasn't gotten to everyone.

Obama opposing a super activist Supreme Court on its recent extension of First Amendment rights to corporations is the exact opposite of ignoring the Constitution. Those rights for corporations are against the very spirit of the Bill of Rights.

The incredible extensions on hand gun rights for American citizens is also against the strict construction of the 4th Amendment (if you actually read it). However, it is within the spirit of the Amendment. I think the Court can easily pass this one and give this guy his handgun. And I hope they do from a Constitutional standpoint.

Sycophant's Projected SCOTUS vote: 8-1.

All rights come from the government.

#8 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-01 12:42 PM | Flag: Broken Record

This case is really a re-examination of the 14th amendment, and a Supreme Court Ruling called SlughterHouse.

This is from the Petitioners brief:

3. The Privileges or Immunities Clause was all
but erased from the Constitution in The Slaughter-
House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873). Slaughter-
House refused to consider the clause's original public
meaning or its framers' well-known intent. Instead,
the SlaughterHouse majority identified substitute
language in place of Article IV's actual text, and
utilized this new constitutional language to justify
the imposition of its own policies upon the Fourteenth
Amendment's contrary command.
SlaughterHouse transformed the Framers' broad
protection of individual liberty, commonly understood,
into a clause securing only the most obscure rights,
rarely exercised by any American and with which the
States could not ordinarily interfere even had they
the will to do so. It "defeat[ed], by a limitation not
anticipated, the intent of those by whom the
instrument was framed and of those by whom it was
adopted . . . turn[ing], as it were, what was meant for
bread into a stone." SlaughterHouse, 83 U.S. at 129
(Swayne, J., dissenting).
As mandated by SlaughterHouse's rationale, this
Court soon held that the Privileges or Immunities
Clause did not secure Americans' First and Second
8
Amendment rights against state action. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (Second
Amendment); cf. Miller, 153 U.S. 535 (stating in dicta
that the Second and Fourth Amendments are
inapplicable to states).

I suggest you read the briefs that have been filed with the court, this is a very complex case.

Correct Roy

The Fourteenth Amendment formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. Which is what Illinois and Chicago have done.

If you recall the Washington DC ban was overturned last year - FINALLY.

Has a gun ban done any good in these cities? No. Criminals still have them.

I love the argument From AKAT's post above:
"The concept of gun control involves the preposterous idea that people cannot be trusted enough to own guns, but at the same time, they can be trusted enough that YOU don't need one. This logic only applies if you aren't subject to the same laws as the peasants. Therefore, gun control has nothing to do with guns, it is about control."
-chopinbloc, posted in response to an ABC News story
regarding "assault weapons" bans, 02-26-2009

It is so true.

Correct Roy

The Fourteenth Amendment formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. Which is what Illinois and Chicago have done.

If you recall the Washington DC ban was overturned last year - FINALLY.

Has a gun ban done any good in these cities? No. Criminals still have them.

I love the argument From AKAT's post above:
"The concept of gun control involves the preposterous idea that people cannot be trusted enough to own guns, but at the same time, they can be trusted enough that YOU don't need one. This logic only applies if you aren't subject to the same laws as the peasants. Therefore, gun control has nothing to do with guns, it is about control."
-chopinbloc, posted in response to an ABC News story
regarding "assault weapons" bans, 02-26-2009

It is so true.

#14 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2010-02-01 03:39 PM

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in the Slaughter House, was, in the opinion of many legal scholars; an error.
The ruling made the 14th amendment basically worthless.

This case will allow the court to correct what many see as a mistake on the courts (circa 1873) part.

Roy,

Agreed. I am not a legal scholar, but I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Otis. This is a hot button issue and the NRA has been all over it since last year's victory in Washington DC. I think it applies to a LOT of other state laws as well. Can't wait until it comes full circle and hits Gay Marriage. That'll light up the threads.

The 2nd Ammendment was put in place specifically to give the citizens a fighting chance should the federal government at some point begin to oppress the citizens. It was intended as a safe guard. The right to bear arms has little to do with shooting bambi. It has everything to do freedom.

Obama opposing a super activist Supreme Court on its recent extension of First Amendment rights to corporations is the exact opposite of ignoring the Constitution. Those rights for corporations are against the very spirit of the Bill of Rights.

The incredible extensions on hand gun rights for American citizens is also against the strict construction of the 4th Amendment (if you actually read it).

#11 | Posted by Sycophant

Just exactly how does the ruling go against the sprit of the Bill of Rights?

Below is the 4th amendment. WTF does it have to do with HAND GUN rights?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I say make a law saying every citizen posses a weapon and know how to us it. If we all have weapons the bad guy will be far less likely to try anything.
Also a plus stupid people might just soot themselve there by raising the over all I. Q of the nation.
No really I think owning and carring a weapon is a right evry legal American should have the right to do if they wish to.

The best gun is the one the govt doesn't know about

No really I think owning and carring a weapon is a right evry legal American should have the right to do if they wish to.

#19 | Posted by douglasdemille

No realy, that is what the second amendment says. Realy does say that.

You noticed how sycophant tries to validate his spew with " against the very SPIRIT of the Bill of Rights " hmmmmmm, spirit..... something intangible, can't be measured, as per his definition alone, or is it that he is pissed off because things are leaning back in favor of REAL Americans?

Yup, CAPITALISM, makes the world go round, and hastens progress.

Tutamen Deus

All rights come from the government.

#8 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-01 12:42 PM | Flag: Broken Record

#12 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-01 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Facts are facts. It will still be as true tomorrow as it is today. People forget. All rights come from the government.

But that post was about the Conservative Activist Judges on the USSC changing the meaning of the 2nd amendment from this:

"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 activist conservative judges on the USSC changed it to:

"Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as government sees fit."

They just didn't change the words.

buf, your eyes must be brown and your glasses as thick as the bottom of coke bottles.

The Chicago area along with NYC and DC have been the gun control capitals of the US. They also have some of the highest crime rates in the US.

The governbments in the US need to get the message that the 2nd amendment exists for the people, not the government.

Actually, Hawaii is the gun control capital of the US. Last time I checked we have the lowest violent crime rates in the country. What has happened in many of the mainland high crime areas of America is millions of guns ended up in the hands of the wrong people. Gee, whooda thunk it?

BTW, where I live I haven't locked my car or house in 17 years of living there, and the guns are all for hunting.

buf, your eyes must be brown and your glasses as thick as the bottom of coke bottles.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-02-02 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

At least I know how to make a point. Try it sometime. I doubt you can refute any statement I have made on this thread.