McDonald v. Chicago

You keep asking me the same ******* stupid question again and again. I am not inclined to answer it again and again, just because it pleases you to be obtuse.

The Miller decision addressed itself
to the possession of a mutilated weapon,
referred to by the USSC as "an instrument." The 2nd Amendment
defends a citizen's right to possession of weapons that are suitable,
useful to a militia, NOT USELESS JUNK. As a point of evidence,
the trial court in MILLER had taken judicial notice, with no proof
that this "instrument" was a weapon. ONLY possession of WEAPONS, not trash, is protected by the 2 A.
The case was remanded for additional evidence to be taken, as I remember.
Defendants defaulted and were never heard from again
after thay won in the trial court.


I must deny this; your assertion is inconsistent with historical fact.
Upon request, I will be happy to set forth the earlier judicial
point of vu, supported by both respected judges, much closer in time
to the founding of the Bill of Rights, as well as very respected
legal authority both then and now.
I have already set forth some of it to you, Setanta,
which u have made no effort to refute.





David

I have made no effort to refute as you put it because the Supreme Court has never recognized a right of personal self defense until Heller, your tortured "reasoning" notwithstanding.

Will you disagree with the USSC judges if they do not follow the precedent set forth in Heller?

Is being reactionary 'ok' when it results in a ruling you agree with?

You're a smart mouthed bitch, you know? If you had bothered to read this thread, you'd know that i have stated again and again that i will accept the Court's ruling, whether or not i agree with their reasoning. It's a function of believing in the social contract and accepting the rule of law.

I'm getting rather tired of the ill-informed jumping into this thread and trying to pick fights with me. Why don't you go quarrel with your wife, she has to put up with it . . . i don't.

You recently asked what a 'honorable response' to a situation would be. One of the suggestions that I have for you, that I didn't post on that thread, would be to "presume innocence". This could go a long way to improving communications on this board [for everyone].

I meant no "smart mouthed bitch[iness]" with my post. I was truly curious how you would feel if the SC DIDN'T use Heller as precedence. If precedence is so important to some of these justices, I think a 5-4 decision (same as Heller) would be impossible given the Heller ruling. This would produce a result that you'd disagree with. I just wondered if you'd disagree with the ruling on the McDonald case if they rule in favor. Or if you'd agree (with their reasoning) that they HAVE to use Heller as precedence.

Whether or not you accept the courts ruling is irrelevent, it will apply to you regardless of your acceptance. I was curious about your opinion and whether or not you agree. I do not care about your acceptance [no offense].

Please don't presume that I'm being smarky or sarcastic everytime I post.

Apparently, you spent no more time reading and attempting to understand my thread about an honorable response than you have reading and attempting to understand this thread. In that thread, my question was how i should react when someone whom i like and respect has posted something offensive to my beliefs or opinions--so it has absolutely no relevance to this thread, how i have responded to others in this thread and how i have responded to you.

Absolutely nothing which i have posted in this thread suggests that i would not accept the ruling of this Court, regardless of my contempt for so many members of this Court. In fact, i have just recently posted, tediously, as i have done so several times, that the opinions of people in this thread, including my own, are meaningless, and only the ruling of the Court has meaning.

Your comment about legal precedents is completely opaque to me. However, assuming that you mean to say that given the precedent established in Heller, the Court is likely to rule in the same manner in this case, i would agree. This is also something which i have tediously repeated again and again in this thread. Given the contempt which members of this Court have shown for precedent in the past--especially Mr. Justice Thomas--no, i don't see any reason to assume that they would feel compelled to observe precedent in making their ruling. However, given their apparent right-wing judicial-legislative agenda, i think they are likely to rule in the same manner, and for the same flimsy reasons. Once again, i have stated again and again that my opinion and the opinions of others in this thread have no bearing on the ruling. Once again, i have stated again and again that i accept the legality of their ruling, whether or not i agree with it.

If you are so damned curious about my opinion, take the trouble to read and understand my posts in this thread, and don't trouble me with you laziness.

ok

Brandon's question was addressed to someone else. My guess is that we would need a different constitution to begin with.

Actually, my opinion is that the court 'should' almost have a 9-0 vote in favor of McDonald, given the precedent set forth in Heller (if they follow precedence). I would think that Justices who vote against McDonald, are ignoring precedence set forth by Heller. In reality, the liberal members of the court, if the same 4 of them vote the way they did before, would be ignorning precedence.

I'm curious if you'd agree with them if they did. If the vote was 5-4 in favor of McDonald, would you agree with the 4 members who would [seemingly] ignore precedence set forth by Heller and vote against McDonald.

I don't think you've answered that question. And again, I'm not interested in your ACCEPTANCE [no offense, I'm glad you would feel obliged to follow the law, but that's not what I'm interested in here]. Acceptance does not equal agreement.

Of course, I'm just a stupid fuckwad with the brain activity of a knat, so what do I know.

...and I still think presuming innocence would be helpful.

Not necessarily. An amendment which would specify that all the rights of the first eight amendments apply at levels of government would work, though it would hardly be necessary, since almost all of those rights have been extended by incorporation. That's why this case seems portentous, because of the possibility that the Court might decide to incorporate.

Or, and amendment could be offered which basically would subsume all rights, privileges and immunities at all levels of government, and specifying all Federal legislation. That would, of course, reduce the several states to little more than administrative districts, and i personally would consider that a disaster--but it would be legally binding.

In all such cases, of course, it would be accomplished by proposal in the manner provided for in the constitution, and ratification in the manner provided for in the constitution.

You misspelled gnat. I'll take your word for your relative intellectual accomplishment, given a not unreasonable assumption that you'd know better than i would.

I have repeatedly expressed my opinion of Heller. I have repeatedly pointed out that members of this Court show scant respect for precedent. If the allegedly liberal members of the Court ignored the precedent of Heller, i'd hardly think that were worthy of condemnation, given the dubious basis for the ruling in Heller.

I have also repeatedly stated that i would not agree with such a ruling in this case.

You condemn the court's actions in their decision in Heller because they (the 5 that voted in favor) ignored precedent that they apparently did not agree with.

You would not condemn the actions of the justices if they vote against McDonald, if they ignore precedent (Heller) that they apparently do not agree with.


It just doesn't seem consistant. Your agreement/disagreement coincides with your political opinion on gun control. Not on the way the court should adhere to it's principles.
I understand that you accept either outcome of the McDonald decision.

This is a false statement. I consider it an unfortunate decision for contemporary society, and i consider that it is based on a set of dubious appeals to historical interpretations of the general idea of keeping arms, and not based at all upon the language of the amendment.

If you want to erect straw men, that's fine with me. But don't expect me to argue for a position i have never taken.



This is based on a false premise, so you obviously don't at all know what reasons i would have for either praising or condemning the decisions of individual members of the Court.



Leaving aside Emerson's dictum that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a petty mind, as possibly being too strong for this case, it doesn't "seem" consistent because you are basing your conclusion on a false premise.



Well, how fortunate that you took the trouble to tell me what my opinion is--i had not previously been aware of it.

In fact, throughout the years at this site, i have clearly stated that i think that it would be a good thing if handguns were banned, but that i'm not so foolish as to think that this would ever happen. My objection to Heller and any similar decision which the Court might make is that it takes away the salutary regulatory power of governments who have clear interest in the matter.



Once again, this claim is based upon a false premise. Once again, there is a wonderful irony here given the scant respect this Court has shown for precedent.

Ok, problem solved then. I misunderstood your position, apparently. My apologies.

For which I am going to be eternely grateful for.

There is no apology necessary.

I've only articulated my opinion of the effect of Heller once in this thread, and not in detail. So, i'll do so now. Handguns are a terrible burden on our contemporary society. Two hundred years ago, a "right of personal self-defense" might have been plausible for much or even most of the population, with so many people living on or near the frontier, and therefore faced with the threat of snakes, bears, hostile aborigines and the sociopaths and psychopaths who tended to migrate to the frontiers. Those conditions no longer apply. People only "need" handguns for their personal self-defense because the wanton proliferation of firearms in general and handguns in particular has made society much more dangerous than it needs to be. That can't be addressed effectively unless state and local authorities have the power to narrowly regulate the proliferation of firearms, and handguns in particular. Heller very likely will have the effect of jerking the carpet out from under them, and prolonging the agony indefinitely. It costs society so much--emergency medical care, ambulance services, additional police services and protection--and the irresponsible behavior of an essentially reactionary Court not only does nothing to solve the problems, it exacerbates the problems.

And that is why i consider Heller a decision motivated by partisanship and pregnant with potential disaster for the cities.

I remember hearing your opinion on handguns in another thread (in roughly as much detail as you posted here); which I way I felt comfortable stating what I thought your political opinion on that matter was. Your opinion on the court decision I made an assumption on, which you clarified was incorrect.

That does warrent an apology.

I should add that I'm not in total disagreement with your view.

I think the need for guns is in large part due to the existance of guns and the danger they pose in the wrong hands. I agree with you here.

I just don't think that disarming the law-abiding citizens FIRST is the right answer.