Absolutely criminal.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

Nope, now we're in to legaleese. Hey, I thought you guys were against legislating from the bench. Isn't this what the Supreme Court would be doing? The legislators have spoken, let the law rein, or something like that. Is it possible that perhaps court decisions are there to determine whether laws made are constitutional? For some reason, somebody made a big deal about it a few years ago, now its different?


But I get it. Decision for a side you like: Brilliant! Decision for a side you don't like: Criminal!

Who said I wanted em to legislate from the bench?

When a law has been deemed unconstitutional, the citizens have a duty to disobey that law. The law in Chicago is unconstitutional. That is how I can safely say what they are doing is criminal.





But I get it. Decision for a side you like: Brilliant! Decision for a side you don't like: Criminal![/quote]

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

[/quote]



So I take it that you don't agree with the legal point that DC is under federal jurisdiction and that previous decisions indicates that cities and municipalities could make gun laws as they seem fit.

They have a DUTY* to disobey the law? My, my. Such hyperbole. You first. Go wave a handgun in front of a Chicago police station and challenge the law! Be a real patriot. Or better, allow the legal suits to do their thing. Like we need more goofballs acting up in front of police stations--they got enough problems to worry about. I'm less likely to be injured by a judicial hearing.

Aren't you being a bit reactionary here?

*defined as required, moral obligation,

The Supreme Court has declared a law unconstitutional. It is now up to those elected officials to revamp their legislation to operate within the Constitution.

If the Court had changed that law, then you might have an argument for legislating from the bench.

As for the article, when has any state or municipality been exempt from a Supreme Court ruling?

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

I'm only going by the comments made by the city attorney in the Sun-Times, but they are saying that previous court decisions upheld that individualities "municipalities" have a right to make gun laws. DC is under "federal jurisdiction" and that appears to be the legal argument.

I mean its not as if the Constitution applies to all actions in this country. For instance, do I have the right to freedom of guns at work if my employer says no? They say the DC decision doesn't effect them because they're not under federal jurisdiction.

So I take it that you don't agree with the legal point that DC is under federal jurisdiction and that previous decisions indicates that cities and municipalities could make gun laws as they seem fit.[/quote]

They can make gun laws, but they can not outlaw entire classes of firearms that are used for lawful purposes. A total hand gun ban in the city is in direct violation of the SCOTUS's ruling.

LMFAO.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

What if your employer decided you weren't a person when you were working? Or that you didn't have freedom of speech? Or any other right you value?

As Americans we have the right to bear arms. Complete bans on guns are in clear violation of that right. The Supreme Court saying so isn't legislating from the bench, legislating from the bench is the Supreme Court saying that the 14th Ammendment gives us the right to abortions.

__________________
Woodrow Wilson

It would appear they are the Tweddle Dum and Tweedle Dee poster boys for gun control. The Canadian experience is that facts and science are not the basis of the anti-gun lobby and their campaign against firearms. They deny facts and science because it negates their agenda. Rather, they have created an atmosphere of fear through fear mongering and propaganda. Currently, the majority of Canadians believe our society is less safe than before. The opposite is shown in current Statistics Canada stats. This false perception has been created by the media's "if it bleeds, it leads" business philosophy of the anti-firearms politicians and their supporting lobby. Mayor Daley and his ilk reflect the Canadian reality.

Mayor Miller is the largest slum lord in Canada. See Wfive's program on Toronto public housing. He has been impotent when it comes to suppressing the urban gangs and addressing the social conditions that are their breeding ground. His real legacy is that the number of gangs has increased during each year of his tenure as mayor. His response is to attack a legal minority group that has an historic culture of firearms ownership. Truth was the first casualty in his campaign. Sound familiar? You may see more of Mayor Miller if you Google pictures of the recent Annual Gay Pride Parade in Toronto. He participated flanked by a drag queen on each arm. So much for a dignified Mayor!

Last but not least, there is now an international campaign to boycott Toronto because of the rabid attack on sport firearms. Miller has claimed there was no economic downside to persecuting gun owners. Perhaps when their convention and tourist figures are down Miller will see the light. Don't expect him to admit it though.