0
Jiggs

2nd Amendment?

Recommended Posts

Quote


Also, if you want to know why Morton Grove's ban was left standing, read the article HERE. It still exists because of one greedy, glory seeking lawyer who was too stupid to know the only name ha'd make for himself would be one cursed by gun owners. Thank the activist judge on the district court and the SOB Judge Bauer from the Seventh Circuit.



But the Supremes declined to review it, so it still stands and was used as precedent for several others.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But the Supremes declined to review it, so it still stands and was used as precedent for several others.



Quote

.....Perhaps the most infamous of these cases was Quillici v. Morton Grove, although the harm done by that case may eventually be overshadowed by a current case in California, Silveira v. Lockyer.

In 1981, the Chicago suburb of Morton Grove banned handguns. Prospects for a state-court legal challenge to the prohibition ordinance appeared good; the Illinois constitution had been rewritten in 1970, and had added an explicit individual right to keep and bear arms. Even better, the Illinois constitutional-convention debate had raised the issue of handgun prohibition, and the convention's affirmative vote for the constitutional right was a rejection of the argument that handgun prohibition should be allowed.

Prospects for a federal court legal challenge to the handgun prohibition were terrible. In the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Lewis, the Court came close to stating that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, in a footnote written by Justice Harry Blackmun. Now in the decades before Lewis, there were many Supreme Court cases recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right, and there have been several such cases since 1990. But as of 1981, Lewis was the Court's last word on the subject, and the Court was, at best, indifferent to Second Amendment rights.

So the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation both began making plans for a lawsuit challenging the handgun ban under the Illinois constitution.

But the NRA and SAF were beaten into court by a lawyer determined to make a name for himself, by being the named party and the lead counsel in the case: Victor D. Quilici. The day after the ordinance was enacted, Quilici filed a case in the Cook county circuit court. Besides raising Illinois constitutional issues, he raised claims under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Because Quilici's claim involved federal issues, the lawyers for Morton Grove were able to file a motion to have the case removed to federal court. The NRA asked Quilici to dismiss the federal claims from his case, so the case could go back to state court. He refused.

A large coalition of state attorneys general petitioned the federal judge to hold the case in abeyance, and not to interpret the Illinois constitution. Rather, said the attorneys general, the federal court should wait until Illinois courts had an opportunity to interpret the Illinois constitution.

Federal courts often show such deference to state courts on matters of state law. The antigun federal district judge, however, apparently recognized a golden opportunity. He proceeded expeditiously with the case of Quilici v. Morton Grove. Soon, he issued a ruling holding that the Illinois constitution right to arms did not forbid banning handguns, and that the federal Second Amendment did not prevent any type of gun ban.

The decision was affirmed 2-1 by a Seventh Circuit panel. Judge Bauer wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that the original intent and history of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment was irrelevant. Seven weeks before oral argument, Bauer had appeared on the Miller's Court television show, and said that he thought an ordinance banning all firearms would be constitutional. Despite this obvious bias, Judge Bauer refused to recuse himself from the case.



And this is the foundation of your justification for further handgun bans? Not exactly solid.

.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



And this is the foundation of your justification for further handgun bans? Not exactly solid.

.



I'm not justifying anything. The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the lower court ruling stands as the law. Incompetent counsel - well that's the way the system works.

So how do you feel about indigent defendants in Texas who have incompetent counsel? Texas just executes them.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"After all, I don't need a government permit to say "Nixon was a crook, Clinton is a scoundrel, Kerry is a creep and Bush is a liar". "

Yeah, all you need is a dropzone.com login.B|;)
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But the Supremes declined to review it, so it still stands and was used as precedent for several others.



First, just because the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, does not mean that they agree with the lower court ruling. It makes no statement at all about the merits of the case.

And yes, the bad law still stands, which sometimes happens in our judicial system. We have numerous decisions in different jurisdictions which contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But the Supremes declined to review it, so it still stands and was used as precedent for several others.



First, just because the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, does not mean that they agree with the lower court ruling. It makes no statement at all about the merits of the case.



But they are letting it stand, implied agreement. They may just be waiting for a different case to come along, but until it does, the decision is at least binding on that part of federal court system. No one gets to claim the SC might overturn it, therefore it's invalid.

What happened with Emerson, btw? I decided to save the NRA some money in mailings and dropped my membership, so I don't get the factoid magazine anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

But the Supremes declined to review it, so it still stands and was used as precedent for several others.



First, just because the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, does not mean that they agree with the lower court ruling. It makes no statement at all about the merits of the case.



But they are letting it stand, implied agreement. They may just be waiting for a different case to come along, but until it does, the decision is at least binding on that part of federal court system. No one gets to claim the SC might overturn it, therefore it's invalid.

What happened with Emerson, btw? I decided to save the NRA some money in mailings and dropped my membership, so I don't get the factoid magazine anymore.



NO!
The U.S. Supreme Court had repeatedly SPECIFIED that its refusal to hear a case is NOT to be taken to mean they are giving their agreement to the lower court's decision. There could be myriad reasons to not hear a case during a given session (probably not all of them politically pure, either).

Sounds like you're maligning what really is an excellent magazine. "Factoid" has a negative connotation, and I'm not sure you really mean it that way. At least what gets written there is verifiable fact. Go to the leaflets put out by HCI and all the other gun-grabbers and see how factual their crap is. Hint: it's not.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But they are letting it stand, implied agreement



You are incorrect there. The Supreme Court says on a regualr basis that failure to review a case does not equal agreement or endorsement of a ruling.

Quote

What happened with Emerson, btw?



The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and specifically refuted the claim that Miller endorses a collective rights interpretation.

However, the 9th Circuit CoA, in Silveira v. Lockyer decision, stated that there is no individual right in the second amendment.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

But they are letting it stand, implied agreement



You are incorrect there. The Supreme Court says on a regualr basis that failure to review a case does not equal agreement or endorsement of a ruling.

Quote

What happened with Emerson, btw?



The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and specifically refuted the claim that Miller endorses a collective rights interpretation.

However, the 9th Circuit CoA, in Silveira v. Lockyer decision, stated that there is no individual right in the second amendment.



And if we never got any more to go on than that, we could look for guidance to the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the country. In other words, it is not a safe bet to ever rest upon a decision they made, because I read that 70% of their decisions are overturned eventually!

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0