After helping to strike down the Chicago handgun ban, the winners in today’s Supreme Court decision promised, in an exclusive interview with the Heritage Foundation, that more such cases would be coming in the next few weeks. Alan Gura, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, promised, “There will be future cases, I will be bringing cases in the days and weeks to come.” When asked about the decisions impact, he said, “We will see laws that serve no useful purpose other than to annoy gun owners struck down and others that are actually critically necessary for public safety upheld.”
This morning, the Court sided with Gura and his client, 76 year old Otis McDonald. Otis had pursued the lawsuit after feeling that the city’s ban left him defenseless. In our interview, Gura, McDonald and Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb shared their thoughts on the freshly minted decision and explained the impact it will have on Chicago and the rest of the country. Earlier this year, after the case was argued before the Court, Gura and Gottlieb sat down for an interview describing their strategy and hopes for the Court’s decision. Much of their prediction came true in today’s victory.
Elsewhere on the Foundry, Heritage scholars have provided their analysis of the Court’s decision and the ramifications it should have on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Pingback: » Links To Visit – 06/28/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter
I posted this on Tea Party Nation yesterday and received a reply that is one of the best I have ever read. He states that this "never should have risen to such lofty heights" but should have been thrown out by the lower courts. Please go to the link given below.
The New York Times
Mon, June 28, 2010 — 10:29 AM ET
—–
Justices Rule That 2nd Amendment Also Governs State and Local Gun Laws
The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the Second Amendment,
which forbids Congress from infringing the right to keep and
bear arms, applies to state and local governments as well.
The case, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, involved a
challenge to the City of Chicago's gun control law, regarded
as among the strictest in the nation. The justices did not
strike down the Chicago law directly, but remanded the case
to a lower court for review, where it appeared likely to be
struck down under today's decision.
http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/just…
Pingback: Morning Bell: The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery
If I could speak to the four justices who voted against McDonald, I'd like to ask them "what part of the second clause of the 2nd Amendment don't you understand?" In part it states "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Well, he11s bells, Justices, who do you think "the people" are? Notice also, that "the right of the people" is stated in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and the 9th mentions "the people". So, logically. Why would a supreme court justice not see that "the people" means the same in all 4 mentioned amendments? .
What I fear the most is that the second amendment was save with a vote of 5-4,if the Supreme Court is to fallow the law of the land it has shown the American people that their are four judges who want to get rid of our Constitution. It is time to fight for what is ours, no more pushing us around from the first to the last amendment
This is not fantastic. The vote should have been 9 in favor of the second amendment not just a paltry 5.
http://www.insquote4u.com/ car insurance quotes [url http://www.insquote4u.com/ car insurance quote [url http://www.insquote4u.com/ car insurance [url http://www.insquote4u.com/ auto owners insurance [url http://www.insquote4u.com/ auto insurance rates [url http://www.insquote4u.com/ auto insurance quotes [url http://www.fansofheroes.com/ zoloft online [url http://www.japaninscotland.com/ cialis [url http://www.notrock.com/ health insurance [url 64147@gmail.com
??Le courant serpente entre les prairies parfum??es, Les arbres fleuris deviennent neigeux souscharms/schmuck/thomas sabo les rayons argent??s; Dans l'air qui semble condens??, se meut le givre Qui voile les rives sablonneuses, ?? peine distinctes.