|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: Illinois groups watch for signs from Trump Supreme Court nominee on key state issues
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on McDonald vs. Chicago, which found the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to all states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said it�s important the new justice be a strict constructionist who follows what the framers set out for in Second Amendment.
Pearson has said his group is involved in one case � fighting suburban Deerfield's attempt to ban certain guns � that it is prepared to take to the Supreme Court. The ban was put on hold last month when a Lake County circuit court put an injunction on the ordinance. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/13/2018)
|
| "Political mapmaking" is, by definition, a POLITICAL issue. Courts are not constitutionally empowered to usurp political issues - they are the province of legislatures. If you want to affect the results of redistricting, then change the balance of representatives in your legislature. You cannot circumvent their constitutional authority to act, whether or not you like the results. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
