The Chicagoist gets it wrong.

The Chicagoist has this piece that was written just before the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald v Chicago.

"The City of Chicago is preparing for today's ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on the handgun ban as the court issues its opinion on McDonald v. City of Chicago. (The city of Oak Park also has its handgun ban at issue with the case.)"

Chicago just has a mind set of it's own. They don't get it, this case goes beyond Chicago and beyond Oak Park. The Supreme Court is not ruling, "Chicago can't ban guns." or "Oak Park can't ban guns." This ruling goes against every gun ban in every city and every State. When they opined that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States, that incorporates the definition given in Heller.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation."-D.C. v. Heller

SCOTUS Opines 5-4 for Incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago

This should have been a unanimous decision.

"JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."

The opinion is here.

Questions:

Does this mean "Constitutional Carry" for all states?

First the SC confirms that the 2nd is an individual right to keep and bear.

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual right to keep and bear arms."-Heller

Then the definition of the operative clause indicates the purpose of carrying arms for defense in case of confrontation.  The SC did not give a specific definition of when and where the carrying of arms would be prohibited or if it could be prohibited.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”-Heller

Does this effect the NFA or the Gun Control Act?

Can a State or municipality prohibit the possession of automatic weapons?
If a State or municipal law prohibiting a handgun is unconstitutional, how could a state law prohibiting any type or class of weapon stand?

Illinois law prohibits automatic weapons(machine guns)-

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
"(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or

carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for

the purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less

than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall lengt(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:h of less than 26 inches;"-720 ILCS 5/24‑1

Democrats in Their Own Words

I tried to come up with an opening staement for this, but it just explains itself so well.  I'll let the Democrats speak for themselves.....

"No one likes paying taxes, particularly abusive taxes with no accountability, but they are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society."-Illinois Democrats

 At least the Illinois Democrats are honest about how they are abusive and unaccountable with tax dollars.

"If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. "-Illinois Democrats

 "Our view: we’re all equal—each and every one of us, no matter what we look like or believe in or don’t believe—as long as we don’t legislate or mandate or somehow force our views on others."-Illinois Democrat

 I see, they are allowed their views, they just won't tolerate a conservative Christian view.  In fact they ridicule, make snide remarks, and  file lawsuits because our views "offend" them.  Democrats-the party of equality and tolerance.  It seems they are open and welcoming to every view or religion EXCEPT Christianity.

"We’re pro-life as much as the religious extremists but we believe it’s a woman’s right to choose to give life."-Illinois Democrats

  Yeah, we just think the decision is made before the bedroom activities.

"They fight paper trails that would assure fair and honest elections."-Illinois Democrats

 Who was that undocumented worker in the White House?  Oh, thats right, Obama is the name.  How much money did he spend fighting the paper trail of his birth?

"They don’t question outsourcing valuable American jobs to China, India, Mexico, and elsewhere."-Illinois Democrats

By "they" I think they mean Conservative Republicans.  Have these Democrats looked outside their Chicago office in the last couple of decades?  Seriously, democrats haven't seen any Republican opposition to moving jobs out of the Country?

I guess Democrats don't question it either, they encourage it through the above mentioned "particularly abusive taxes with no accountability" that "are a necessity of life and part of the reality of living in a democratic society".

"Our view: We don’t like labels. We don’t fear those who are different. We like and welcome diversity. Our fragile democracy cannot survive with hatemongering and lying in the name of false “patriotism.” The extremes of fascism and communism are about people who blame others for their problems and want everyone to believe, behave, and look like themselves. That’s not us.”- Illinois Democrats

"WE CAN’T SIT IDLY BY WHILE THEY TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY
If you think the extremists on the right are going to go away, think again. Between the ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists and the neo-conservatives, they are taking over our country from top to bottom, and we, as progressives and liberals and Democrats, need to fight much harder against their distorted values and egocentric viewpoints. We must tell President Obama again and again he can’t be Mr. Nice Guy. The Republicans are the party of “No.” they’ve become the party of Tea-Baggers. They will never ever allow Obama a victory of any sort, no matter how good it may be for the country as a whole."-Illinois Democrats

So who was it that came up with these:

1. extremists
2. ultra right-wing religious fundamentalists
3. neo-conservatives
4. distorted values
5. egocentric viewpoints
6. Republicans are the party of “No.”
7. the party of Tea-Baggers
Seven labels in the opening paragraph of the article, I would hate to imagine that paragraph if they liked labels and fear mongering.

"They assure that their industries are too big to fail."-Illinois Democrats

 This has to be the funniest one, these guys don't know the Democrats came up with the "to big to fail" idea.

 This just goes on and on, not just in the examples of this ONE article.  Yes, all these are from one article posted at IL-democrats.org.  Look around at other media sources and you will find more of the same.

Liberal Response to the Arizona Illegal Immigrant Law

Apparently the people at change.org think everyone who has light brown or olive skin is an illegal immigrant.  No physical appearance should not be as much a factor in reasonable suspicion as suspicious activities.

"Common sense dictates that if I, as a police officer, see blond-haired, blue-eyed Sue standing on the street corner, I won't think much of it. But if I see caramel-complexioned Juan Miguel, I now claim "reasonable suspicion" to ask Juan about his immigration status."-Change.org

I love the response to the Passage of Arizona Senate Bill SB1070 at the Daily Kos blog.

"Since I heard of this reactionary and evil passage and ramrod signing of SB 1070, I immediately thought that the best way to strike back would be a boycott of Major League Baseball."-Daily Kos

So, telling law enforcement they can question someone they have reason to believe is in the country illegally is reactionary and evil, and passage of it was ramrodding.  So what would they call the passing of a bill that a majority of the people do not support, the people RAMRODDING it through say we they have to pass it to know what is in it, and claim it must be done NOW, yet it will not have any effect for years?

I guess it is somehow inappropriate to enforce the law?  Boy, could we have used to enforce the law in 2008.  If the Congress had done it's Constitutional duty to verify the eligibility of the President Elect, we might not have the absolute plunge to socialism that is occurring in the country.

Arizona is in a unique position along with three other states.  Arizona shares a 378 mile border with Mexico, 24 miles along the Colorado River on the west and 354 miles of land border. New Mexico shares 180 miles of land border.  California shares a mere 141 miles of land border.  Texas shares 1255 miles of border, the Rio Grand River.  (Information is from the International Boundary and Water Commision http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/US-Mx_Boundary_Map.pdf)

There is a way to immigrate into this country in a legal manner.  I have no issue at all with those who wish to come to this country in a legal manner.  If someone chooses to enter this country illegally, why should we believe they will honor any other law of this country?

Arizona is in a position to have a high number of illegal persons.  Why would the law enforcement professionals not be allowed to question a person who is acting suspicious or seems nervous?  If you have ever been to Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico you know they are not going to arrest every person who looks Hispanic and verify their citizenship.  That would take several lifetimes!  Come on, are you ASSUMING that all law enforcement officers are racists and are going to arrest everyone who looks Hispanic?  That seems to be the case you are making.

More crazy legislation in Illinois.

Bills that ban "Assault Weapons" and .50 calibers.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3036 that would ban manufacture, sale, possesion of "assault weapons", "assault weapon" attachments, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.

Rep. Edward J. Acevedo (D) Chicago - Maria Antonia Berrios (D) Chicago introduced HB 5751 that would  do the same as the above bill.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago introduced SB 1721 that would do the same as the abovc bills.

Legislation that Requires Micro Stamping

Sen. Dan Kotowski (D) Park Ridge(Chicago) - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3425 - Provides that it is a Class 3 felony for a person to knowingly sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, or carry any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 that is not microstamp-ready, or any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after that date if the person knows that a microstamping mechanism has been unlawfully removed from that handgun. Provides that any person who shall knowingly or intentionally change, alter, remove or obliterate the importer's or manufacturer's microstamping mechanism is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

Legislation to make something that is already illegal more illegal?

Sen. Kwame Raoul (D) Chicago introduced SB0323

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of Corrections. Creates the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member. Provides that a person commits the offense if he or she

(1) possesses, carries, or conceals on or about his or her person a firearm and firearm ammunition while on any street, road, alley, gangway, sidewalk, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or inside his or her fixed place of business, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang; or

(2) possesses or carries in any vehicle a firearm and firearm ammunition which are both immediately accessible at the time of the offense while on any street, road, alley, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or garage, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang. Provides that unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member is a Class 2 felony for which the person, if sentenced to a term of imprisonment, shall be sentenced to no less than 3 years and no more than 10 years. Provides that a period of probation, a term of periodic imprisonment or conditional discharge shall not be imposed for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member when the firearm was loaded or contained firearm ammunition and the court shall sentence the offender to not less than the minimum term of imprisonment authorized for the Class 2 felony. Effective immediately.

My comments on SB0323:

It seems to make being a criminal illegal?

The bill modifies 720 ILCS 5/12‑6.2, (c)For the purposes of this Section, "streetgang", "streetgang member", and "organized gang" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.(740 ILCS 147/). That act defines what a gang member is, 740 ILCS 147/10 "Streetgang member" or "gang member" means any person who actually and in fact belongs to a gang, and any person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with a course or pattern of gang‑related criminal activity, whether in a preparatory, executory, or cover‑up phase of any activity, or who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity.

It makes being a gang related criminal more of a crime. Why don't we just pass a bill that makes commission of a felony with a firearm by ANYONE a class 4 felony with a mandatory sentence.  I believe this has been done in other states, they call it Project Exile. This program actually shifts the prosecution to the Federal circuit, but I think it could be done at a State level.

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

This is further evidence of gender blurring.   Gay, lesbian, straight, bi-sexual, it doesn't matter there is no difference between a man and a woman.  Yeah, RIGHT!

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com

Have the democrats signed their poitical death warrants?

Sounds to me like the democrat strategy is to keep the people in the dark on government, what happened to transparency?

"The American people got too close a look at how Congress actually legislates and that's an ugly thing," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic campaign strategist.

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com