ATTORNEYS LAW STUDENTS PUBLIC
TOP POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST
Share | Print | Report Post Second Amendment Chatboard

Re: Denied Illinois FOID card
Posted by Curmudgeon on 2/28/08

    I was not aware that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush were gun haters. Somebody should notify the NRA that
    they've been duped.

    On 2/28/08, Guns 2 wrote:
    > 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.

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
  Site Map: Home Search Legal Jobs Classifieds Law Students Contacts Practice Areas Advertise
  © 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.