Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

Now you're getting scary. When you say that the established law of the United States doesn't matter and that you don't care
about what the Supreme Court says (and apparently also the Illinois Supreme Court), we definitely don't want you toting
assault weapons and RPGs. Why is it that you don't think that the NRA with its millions of members and billions of dollars
and whole hordes of lawyers has never been able to convince any judges that you're right?

On 2/28/08, guns wrote:
> Just because 9 people in long black robes sitting in a fancy building in Washington,
> D.C., that disagree with your analysis. 9 peoples vote or believes about something doesn’t make it right, especially in this
> day in age with all the different interest groups push one thing or another. Let 9 NRA members vote a decision and the out
> come would be something else. Read this article from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor In my work as a Supreme Court justice, I
was
> required by the Constitution to fairly and impartially apply the law—not the law, as I wanted it to be but the law as it
was.
> Now, as a private citizen, I am anxious about the state of the judiciary in America.
>
> I am not concerned about particular judges or cases, nor am I concerned about the judiciary shifting right or left. What
> worries me is the manner in which politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice.
>
> The rule of law in the U.S. includes statutes and constitutional provisions. It also involves precedent, which is a previous
> judicial ruling on a matter. A judge typically defers to precedent. Like good cooking, good judging requires taking
> ingredients and procedures used successfully in the past and adjusting them to the case at hand. New legal recipes—or rules—
> can have major ramifications. So if a judge comes up with a new way to apply the law, her opinion may be reviewed by state
or
> federal appellate courts to ensure that it is a correct interpretation of the law. If it’s not, it’s overturned.
>
> Thus, our judicial system has safeguards to ensure consistency and preservation of the law. But it is threatened when judges
> ignore settled law and make decisions according to personal or public preferences. Read the rest at
> http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_02-24-2008/Courts_O_Connor
>
> On 2/27/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>> Apparently you've failed to observe that there are 9 people in long black robes sitting in a fancy building in Washington,
>> D.C., that disagree with your analysis.
>>
>> By the way, you do have a "constitutional rights to bare arms." I do not know of any state or municipality that bans
>> sleeveless shirts. Some fancy restaurants and clubs might, but no government agencies. However, those 9 people don't
>> think that you have an unlimited right to "bear" arms.
>>
>> On 2/27/08, Guns wrote:
>>> Police power. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const., upon
>>> the individual states, and, in turn, delegated to local governments, through which they are enabled to establish a
>>> special department of police; adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and
>>> secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order,
>>> preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted
>>> enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.
>>> The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of
>>> the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police
>>> power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due
>>> process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security,
>>> health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government. Marshall
>>> v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883. This give the right for police power to use foid cards against curtain
>>> indivuals, but in no way gives them the power to take the rights away of law bidding citizens that do not cause a threat
>>> in society, to do so is a violation of their constitutional rights to bare arms. Police power has limitations on
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>>>> This is why we don't want you to have guns. You don't have enough of an attention span to remember the prefatory
>>>> clause as you read the remainder of the sentence. You know--the part that said, "Subject...to the police power...,"
>>>> meaning the right of the state to exercise its police powers to regulate the ownership of firearms.
>>>>
>>>> On 2/26/08, SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS wrote:
>>>>> That’s interesting, I think you are right; Illinois is violating the Illinois States constitution. Foid Cards are un-
>>>>> constitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/21/08, RIGHT TO ARMS wrote:
>>>>>> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
>>>>>> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
>>>>>> Individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>>>>> (Source: Illinois Constitution.) That is straight forward to me as I read the Illinois constitution “Individual
>>>>>> citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Foid cards do exactly that, infringe an individual’s right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/08, Captain America wrote:
>>>>>>> I am mainly talking about the Illinois Constitution. The State of Illinois adopted the Federal constitution by
>>>>>>> vote, so they must follow it, until they have a re- vote not to. And the Illinois constitution states this.
>>>>>>> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
>>>>>>> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
>>>>>>> Individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>>>>>> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No problem Captain America, you don't sound mean at all you just sound kind of frustrated that not everyone
>>>>>>>> agrees with you. As for your suggestion that people who disagree with you should leave the country; well --
>>>>>>>> that is not a comment that deserves a respectful answer. All I can say is -- you need to understand that your
>>>>>>>> opinion is not what counts, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court which was established by Article III of the
>>>>>>>> Constitution. The Constitution you are waving around gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the
>>>>>>>> Constitution. If you don’t like that part of the Constitution you should seek an amendment that would put you
>>>>>>>> in charge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to currently applicable Supreme Court holdings, the Constitution does not guarantee that a citizen
>>>>>>>> may own a firearm. What the Constitution does do is prohibit the federal government from interfering with the
>>>>>>>> states' right to allow its citizens to own a firearm. The states have the right to allow or prohibit their
>>>>>>>> own citizens from owning firearms as they see fit without interference from the federal government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should follow a current case before the US Supreme Court. “D.C. v. Heller” is a case where the 2nd
>>>>>>>> Circuit struck down the DC ban on gun ownership as unconstitutional. The 2nd circuit agrees with your
>>>>>>>> interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The case will be heard this term by the Supreme Court. Their decision
>>>>>>>> will put to rest the question of whether the 2nd Amendment is a state right or a personal right. By following
>>>>>>>> this case you will become informed about the issues involved.