Well! Looks like the US Supreme Court once again ruled in favor of armed citizens! I realize that there is still a lot to shake out of this but it is encouraging.

I am glad the ruling came down the way it did. I hate to imagine what the results would have been if the vote had been the other way. All the best...
Gil

If more "O" judges were seated, it might have been a different outcome. It amazes me that the decision was so close 5-4. It won't be long before the scale tips if "0" stays in office.

Hopefully Kagan won't make it. She's ANTI whatever and is for gay rights. She doesn't need to be there. That's Obama trying to stack the deck.

Was watching WGN last night and the news showed the Chicago courts scrambling to try and end run the desicion w/ mandates and restrictions.

One reporter said it best. Those with political clout and crooks can have handguns, but not citizens? What kind of message does that send?

Nautrally Jesse Jackson had some irrelevent comments.

Chicago is out of control. They need to reel in the crime and protect it's citizens instead of wasting time and money on stupid laws that don't work and coddling crooks. Time to crackdown on gangs, not citizens.

Stovey, the gangs (gangsters) have been running Chicago for years!

National Rifle Association Hails Historic Victory on
Second Amendment Freedom in McDonald v. City of Chicago
Monday, June 28, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

"This is a landmark decision," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way."

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

"This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.

{{{ "Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. }}}

Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision."

This should be a huge win for those of us here in Illinois. Many of our legislators have been sitting on the fence about which way to vote on Concealed Carry. Most were waiting for a definitive decision as to whether the U.S. Constitution and amendments trump "state's rights". Hopefully this is the answer they need.

SingleShotLover wrote:

the U.S. .... trump "state's rights". Hopefully this is the answer they need.

Did not this get answered in 1865 that states had no rights?

Dimitri

Yes, but it is just like the immigration issues. Each state will try to do as it pleases (under "home rule" provisions that state the states have the right to make determinations as long as they don't contravene federal law) until someone finally stands up and files a law suit forcing the Supreme Court to make a decision as to whether such stands are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Lots of issues such as firearm laws hang on for years simply because they are unpopular for the right people to defend. Thankfully we finally got enough people with enough guts involved to force the issue.