NRA update
Several Diverse Coalitions File Amicus Briefs in Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Supporting NRA Lawsuit in Illinois
Friday, February 06, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -- Today, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Independence Institute on behalf of a coalition of law enforcement organizations, Institute for Justice, the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of constitutional law professors, and 70 state legislators from Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of National Rifle Association's (NRA) appeal of the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park's unconstitutional bans on handguns.
NRA filed an appeal to the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of National Rifle Association, et al v. City of Chicago, et al, maintaining that the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment upheld in the Heller decision applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
"In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court determined that every law-abiding American has the right to protect themselves with a firearm in their own homes," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "It is unfortunate there are still jurisdictions that reject that basic right in direct violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
Within hours of the Heller decision, NRA filed suit against the City of Chicago and several suburban jurisdictions around Chicago aimed at striking down their handgun bans by incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Village of Morton Grove and Winnetka repealed bans in their entirety and NRA's challenges were dropped. The Village of Wilmette repealed its ban before the suit was filed. The lawsuit against the City of Evanston is still pending.
U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur, Northern District of Illinois declined to decide whether the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller applies to states and localities. He defaulted the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled adversely in 1982 in the case of Quilici v. Morton Grove.
"NRA is committed to seeing this case all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that is what it takes to uphold the constitutional freedoms of law abiding residents in Illinois and across America. It is beyond unreasonable to deny lawful residents the use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," added Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
-NRA-
Friday, February 06, 2009
Fairfax, Va. -- Today, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Independence Institute on behalf of a coalition of law enforcement organizations, Institute for Justice, the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of constitutional law professors, and 70 state legislators from Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of National Rifle Association's (NRA) appeal of the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park's unconstitutional bans on handguns.
NRA filed an appeal to the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of National Rifle Association, et al v. City of Chicago, et al, maintaining that the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment upheld in the Heller decision applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.
"In the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court determined that every law-abiding American has the right to protect themselves with a firearm in their own homes," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "It is unfortunate there are still jurisdictions that reject that basic right in direct violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
Within hours of the Heller decision, NRA filed suit against the City of Chicago and several suburban jurisdictions around Chicago aimed at striking down their handgun bans by incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Village of Morton Grove and Winnetka repealed bans in their entirety and NRA's challenges were dropped. The Village of Wilmette repealed its ban before the suit was filed. The lawsuit against the City of Evanston is still pending.
U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur, Northern District of Illinois declined to decide whether the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller applies to states and localities. He defaulted the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled adversely in 1982 in the case of Quilici v. Morton Grove.
"NRA is committed to seeing this case all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that is what it takes to uphold the constitutional freedoms of law abiding residents in Illinois and across America. It is beyond unreasonable to deny lawful residents the use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," added Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
-NRA-
0
-
"NRA is committed to seeing this case all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that is what it takes to uphold the constitutional freedoms of law abiding residents in Illinois and across America. It is beyond unreasonable to deny lawful residents the use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," added Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
You gotta be schitting me.
'NRA' and 'uphold constitutional freedoms' do not belong in the same sentence.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
"NRA is committed to seeing this case all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that is what it takes to uphold the constitutional freedoms of law abiding residents in Illinois and across America. It is beyond unreasonable to deny lawful residents the use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," added Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
You gotta be schitting me.
'NRA' and 'uphold constitutional freedoms' do not belong in the same sentence.
OXYMORON!!!0 -
In that article it says the NRA is filing suit. Complain all you want but they are the only ones doing anything. 0 -
Complain all you want but they are the only ones doing anything.
If you define what they are doing as 'help', I'll pass. Since the 30's, the NRA has been undermining the RTKBA for monetary gain. FACT.0 -
Excuse me for asking but you could you please site some references? I have supported the NRA for many years and have not seen any examples of this but if you can show examples I am willing to learn. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sadoggie
Excuse me for asking but you could you please site some references? I have supported the NRA for many years and have not seen any examples of this but if you can show examples I am willing to learn.
Where to start hmm..
http://www.notgovernmentapproved.com/mt-nratrojanhorse.html
http://nrawol.net/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=32470 -
You have an open mind? Good.
You might want to read through these three threads.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=287342
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=263795
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2922030 -
Read the article, because of the NRA many people in several towns that were denied handgun ownership can now legally own handguns. quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
Complain all you want but they are the only ones doing anything.
If you define what they are doing as 'help', I'll pass. Since the 30's, the NRA has been undermining the RTKBA for monetary gain. FACT.0 -
quote:Read the article, because of the NRA many people in several towns that were denied handgun ownership can now legally own handguns.
Contained within that short sentence above is the Yin and Yang of the Second Amendment...and the mentality of the gun controllers that are crowing about this `magnificent victory' by the NRA.
In short ;
`LEGAL' has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT.. it supercedes
the `justice system' of mortal man.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zink
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
"NRA is committed to seeing this case all the way to the United States Supreme Court if that is what it takes to uphold the constitutional freedoms of law abiding residents in Illinois and across America. It is beyond unreasonable to deny lawful residents the use a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," added Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist.
You gotta be schitting me.
'NRA' and 'uphold constitutional freedoms' do not belong in the same sentence.
OXYMORON!!!
+10 -
[:0] Think we might have scared them off? 0 -
If the NRA actually wins the battle against Chicago, I will personaly support the NRA Again.
With the Reagan 1986 REAL BAN I was DONE with the NRA. Now 23 years later if they can win against the Chicago MAchine , I will be a Lifetime member, and never refer to the NRA as the WORST lobby group EVER !
Keeping my fingers crossed...[:D] GO NRA ! [:D]0 -
NRA = NO REAL ACTION 0 -
Don't see anyone on this forum going head to head with the City of Chicago. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
Don't see anyone on this forum going head to head with the City of Chicago.
You are alot closer than I am. If was closer I wouldn't be afraid to get my nose bloodied, are you? My family in Rockford are actively involved and they didn't vote for those in power there.
Lance0 -
I like living , so I will not take on Chicago. To easy to get wacked physically or illegally for life ! 0 -
Just one question here...IF the Heller ruling "the individual right to keep and bear arms" doesn't apply to the states and local goverments(municipalities)
Then who the hell does it apply to?
The Heller ruling specifically came from a ruling against the local government of washington DC.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Just one question here...IF the Heller ruling "the individual right to keep and bear arms" doesn't apply to the states and local goverments(municipalities)
Then who the hell does it apply to?
The Heller ruling specifically came from a ruling against the local government of washington DC.
Of course it applies. One must note that the Heller decision, in addition to confirming an individual right, also confirmed that licensing, registration and regulation of various types of firearms (left to the discretion of the states and municipalities) is provided for in the Constitution.
This individual right is subject to the whims of whatever political hack happens to write local law. The decision is thus not an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can in fact be infringed, just not totally denied.
As stated by many on the day of the decision, 'Heller' will ultimately be recognized as a political and perhaps a tactical victory for gun rights, but in reality a significant strategic defeat.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Just one question here...IF the Heller ruling "the individual right to keep and bear arms" doesn't apply to the states and local goverments(municipalities)
Then who the hell does it apply to?
The Heller ruling specifically came from a ruling against the local government of washington DC.
Of course it applies. One must note that the Heller decision, in addition to confirming an individual right, also confirmed that licensing, registration and regulation of various types of firearms (left to the discretion of the states and municipalities) is provided for in the Constitution.
This individual right is subject to the whims of whatever political hack happens to write local law. The decision is thus not an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can in fact be infringed, just not totally denied.
As stated by many on the day of the decision, 'Heller' will ultimately be recognized as a political and perhaps a tactical victory for gun rights, but in reality a significant strategic defeat.
Yes Don, WE know that, but Daley ect is above the law/constitution. There was a little sarcasm in my post, however this is not a laughing matter to say the least. The pathetic part is Daley is using the taxpayers $$$ to fight this. Chitcago is in debt up to it's ears as it is.
Yes we/the constitution got raped when 9 SC judges do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed"[:(][:(!][xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Yes Don, WE know that, but Daley ect is above the law/constitution. There was a little sarcasm in my post, however this is not a laughing matter to say the least. The pathetic part is Daley is using the taxpayers $$$ to fight this. Chitcago is in debt up to it's ears as it is.
Yes we/the constitution got raped when 9 SC judges do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed"[:(][:(!][xx(]
In understand, Hunter, but it can be argued that Daley merely pushes the edges of the decision to see what it actually means, which is a legitimate question if your goal is to prevent your subjects from possessing handguns. When the good people of Chicago elected Daley, there was no mystery as to where he stood and he can, in his twisted little way, make the argument that his mandate obligates him to infringe as much as is possible and use taxpayers dollars to do so. It was those taxpayers, after-all, that elected him.
Perhaps the day will come when you and I can convince a sufficient number of people that voting anti-constitution cretins into office really is a bad thing. Until that day, we will suffer the idiocy of the folks that we do elect, and those folks will pursue their elected agenda.
In short, Daley is doing what he said he would do. From his perspective, and given the green light proffered by Heller, it is what he should do.0 -
Daley has a Stalinistic type grip on politics/the elections in chitcago. Especially with strong union support and pay to play issues/contracts. Support Daley and you will get city contracts. Much the same that Blago was indicted for.
It began in 1955(?)with Daley Sr.
That's all,I don't want to get too far off here. This isn't the politics forum.[;)][xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
Daley has a Stalinistic type grip on politics/the elections in chitcago. Especially with strong union support and pay to play issues/contracts. Support Daley and you will get city contracts. Much the same that Blago was indicted for.
It began in 1955(?)with Daley Sr.
That's all,I don't want to get too far off here. This isn't the politics forum.[;)][xx(]
Kind of a big word for a DS huh?
Even spelled correctly![:0][:o)]0 -
Did you take the C,6 and the N test yet? [8D]
Ya EN, EN=English Nerd...[:o)]0 -
I hate the Chicago , union conection ! Listen boneheads , most UNION ,members are not only gun owners , but tobbaco chewing, hunting fools LIKE U, around here ! Christ get your facts straight.
HELL ONE UNION in chicagoland Just 2 years ago made 100's if not thousands of Special Springfield 1911's , with the Union Logo on it . They are in COOK COUNTY duh ! They are making a second run for once the first batch was sold out. And when seen by the members the orders came in again fast fast. The President of that Union and the Business agents are advid Hunters ! I know I hunt with them.
Dailey has his agenda to get the Minority Vote, hell every white guy I know , but 1 has , pistols , and at least an AR in there home, to protect themselves from the Dailey voting Minorities !0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
24 comments