Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the Court by the President of the United States. The President can appoint a judge to the
Supreme Court every time a vacancy occurs. Because Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, a vacancy can only occur through
the death, resignation, retirement, or impeachment of a sitting justice. If the president is a gun hater then he can appoint all
gun-hating judges.

On 2/28/08, guns wrote:
> Maybe those judges are gun haters like you, and that’s why they weigh in favor of destroying the constitution, which is an act of
> treason, because they swore to protect it. Why do you want to take rights away from law bidding citizens? Why do you like
> communist governments better? I don’t know anyone who owns a RPG, so that’s not a factor in this discussion. I am only talking
> about semi-automatic firearms to use as home protection, that is a constitutional right. Gun haters always assume that every law-
> bidding citizen that believes in the right to bare arms, are crazy militia gun-carrying maniacs. Some would classify that kind of
> thinking as paranoia.
>
> On 2/28/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>> 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.