Daley/Chicago about to get Ow3ned again.

That was really well written, I hope he gets it shoved up his ass sideways.
And whats with all the aldermen marchin lock-step with his anti gun agenda?
I always thought he was a One-Man a**h***, but he's hot a whole fleet of them.
 
They need to sue these individual legislators in civil court for, say, $2 million each for flaunting the supreme court's decision in public. They only way to get these dirtbags to stop the endless cycle of new restrictions is to hurt them in the feedbag.
 
I really liek this part...

25.
Although the Ordinance furthers the pretense that Section 8-20-170(b) is a safety regulation by including in the superintendent’s determination such factors as “reliability” and “quality of manufacturing,” in truth the law gives that official unfettered discretionary power to proscribe ownership of any—or all—handguns as “unsafe.” Indeed, several of the factors that the Ordinance lists as potentially leading to ban on a particular model of handgun as “unsafe” are parameters that would in any reasonable determination count as virtues for a self-defense weapon. A small, light handgun, of small caliber, is easier to handle and wield—especially for the elderly, the infirm, and for women—yet the Ordinance provides that “size,” “weight,” and “caliber” may be used to ban a handgun as “unsafe.”
Click to expand...
 
KBCraig said:
Probably premature, though. McDonald was remanded, not settled. The 7th Circuit still has to issue a new ruling.
Click to expand...

Well, a federal judge would have to be an idiot not to understand why it was remanded. The bigger problem with the above complaint is it reads like lobbying material and not a legal complaint.
 
It was remanded because the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Judge inappropriately dismissed the plaintiff's assertion that the 2nd Amendment and thus Heller verse District of Columbia applied to his case because the 2nd Amendment, though an individual right of the People of the United States, didn't restrict State Law as it was not incorperated under the 14th Amendment.

In light of the Supreme Court's Decision, which is that the 2nd Amendment, and by their opinion the "Right to Self Defense" is incorperated onto State and Local Governments, and thus a Right of the People rather than a restriction upon the federal government, the original Federal Judge must now consider the plaintiff's arguments for thier merit rather than their juristiction.
 
Spanz said:
They need to sue these individual legislators in civil court for, say, $2 million each for flaunting the supreme court's decision in public. They only way to get these dirtbags to stop the endless cycle of new restrictions is to hurt them in the feedbag.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The only way to stop them is to put them in jail by some means. Well, that, or give them a one way ticket on Pinochet's airplane, but we haven't quite reached that point yet.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand how:

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.

is left open to interpretation. It's pretty !@#$ing clear "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." how much more clear can it be stated? freaking nutjob gun grabbers.
 
Would a call for Daily's removeal from office be appropriate???The bum is costing the residents of Chicago a bundle which I am sure the city could use better elsewhere.Perhaps for a new rope and tree for the park..
 
This is where it gets interesting.

Reasonable restrictions is about to get at least some clarification. And the big part I think, and the part that I predict will be the center of a lot of lawsuits in the years to come is the question of what constitutes a defacto ban. I don't think a ruling in favor of carrying outside the home or business for self defense is going to happen.
 
NICE! keep the lawsuits coming.
We`ll see if the citizens of Chicago like spending their tax dollars on legal bills rather than keeping teachers and schools open.
 
does this make any sense to anyonelse?

"A person 18 to 20 years of age may obtain a CFP only if (1) “the person has the written consent of his parent or legal guardian”"

If a person is over 18, aren't they their own legal guardian?
 
daddysuperfly said:
does this make any sense to anyonelse?

"A person 18 to 20 years of age may obtain a CFP only if (1) “the person has the written consent of his parent or legal guardian”"

If a person is over 18, aren't they their own legal guardian?
Click to expand...
None of it makes sense. It isn't supposed to.
 
NHAtHeart said:
I still don't understand how:

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.

is left open to interpretation. It's pretty !@#$ing clear "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." how much more clear can it be stated? freaking nutjob gun grabbers.
Click to expand...

It's because many people believe the first part is a clause and not a statement of fact. When people bring this up to me I use this argument.

"Winter being cold, the right of the people to keep and bare parkas shall not be infringed." Then I ask them if they can only own a parka if it's cold, and Winter. This is when the real antigunners realize the hole in their argument and start talking about owning tanks or something outlandish BS.
 
I think it is a well written petition. I am not a lawyer so of course this may mean nothing. They have attacked the clearly egregious parts of the ordinance which make it an effective ban for the residents of Chicago which I think makes an excellent case. As an example the inability to train within the city or 18-21 year olds without parents. The carry arguments are persuasive but I don't think carry has been settled in either Heller or MacDonald so that will be interesting.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
Sibb said:
It's because many people believe the first part is a clause and not a statement of fact. When people bring this up to me I use this argument.

"Winter being cold, the right of the people to keep and bare parkas shall not be infringed." Then I ask them if they can only own a parka if it's cold, and Winter.
Click to expand...

You could always twist words around on them too.. since they like to do the same.

From Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Since every male at 18 signs up for selective service... i'd say most are quailified as a militia... but that's just my take on it.
 
Militia is defined in 10 U.S.C. 311...

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
 
David Balkus said:
Would a call for Daily's removeal from office be appropriate???The bum is costing the residents of Chicago a bundle which I am sure the city could use better elsewhere.Perhaps for a new rope and tree for the park..
Click to expand...

your extrememly correct, the unemployment rate is shy high, and so on.

fighting this lawsuit will not be cheap, if he or they do decide they certainly should be removed.
 
They need to sue these individual legislators in civil court for, say, $2 million each for flaunting the supreme court's decision in public. They only way to get these dirtbags to stop the endless cycle of new restrictions is to hurt them in the feedbag.
Click to expand...

How about this?

United States Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ...
 
foggy65 said:
How about this?

United States Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same...They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ...
Click to expand...

Now get a U.S. District Attorney to enforce that and you might have something there. Nice find.
 
terraformer said:
Well, a federal judge would have to be an idiot not to understand why it was remanded. The bigger problem with the above complaint is it reads like lobbying material and not a legal complaint.
Click to expand...
Well, you know how Obama hates Judges and practicing lawyers. You know, people with experience and such? Perhaps his stacked courts will appreciate a more "layman" approach to the law. [laugh]

I am thinking I was too harsh on Kagan's "it's ok if laws violate the Constitution, we won't enforce those..."

One could read that as, "It's ok if laws violate the Constitution, we won't obey those..."

How do you think that would go? [wink]

I sincerely hope Daley/Chitcago get whacked with big civil rights fines on this garbage...
 

Similar threads

Moving to MA in about a year from FL
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
4K
zork51
Z
Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!
Replies
2
Views
260
CrackPot
CrackPot
Is this a good enough reason to get a .45 GAP?
2 3
Replies
79
Views
1K
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Correct way to get guns back from police?
Replies
24
Views
1K
Garys
Garys
About that “cleaning guns” thing.
Replies
4
Views
382
allen-1
allen-1
Back
Top Bottom