Illinois Firearm Identification card ruled unConstitutional in state court....yes, this is correct.

[Daryl Hunt]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms...

Murdoch:
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant.

These statements are plenary and thus apply to all rights; they are so set apart from the other points because they do not include references to rights specific to the 1st, in contrast to said other points.

Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.

This has already been covered many times. I don't feel the need to drag out all the old cites out once again. Heller V DC only dealt with what a City can do. And it specifically allowed the registrations and licensing of handguns and handgun owners for gun inside the homes for serviceable handguns. Nothing else. The Courts can only rule on what is put in front of them and that is all Heller sued for. He got the right to have the ability to have a reasonable licensing and registration for himself and others inside DC as well as a reasonable registration for serviceable handguns for the home plus, once those other two were met, the right to have a serviceable handgun inside his home.

Heller V did not cover all the crap that many claim it did. Many take the dissenting views as laws. It's not. Dissenting means "Losing Side" in legal terms. The Dissenting side views were many times longer than the winning sides views by a long shot since the winning side's was so basic to begin with. People keep using Heller V for everything other than what it really is. And that is the right to have a reasonable right to have a handgun in your home for home defense.

And you are right, Murdock V deals in Religion, therefore, it's strictly Amendment 1 and has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 2. It's for the freedom of Religion. I can play the Beatles Hey Jude Backwards and if listen long enough and close enough and use my imagination I can hear.......

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why does it bother you that the state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a right?

Mostly because I don't think that there's a right for crazy people to own a machine gun hiding in the Militia Amendment.

I do think that the FOID is kind of useless, as they really don't check them, as we saw in the recent Aurora case, where the criminal was able to get one without anyone figuring out that he had done time in MS for stabbing a woman. After he applied for a CCA, they found out about it because someone bothered to look, but no one confiscated his gun, and he shot five of his coworkers.

But since the courts are currently coming up with the bizarre interpretation that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership, then let's take a simpler approach.

You can sell anyone a gun you want to, but you are held liable for what they do with it. Get rid of the protections gun sellers get when their prime customers go on shooting sprees.

Well good thing you didn't write the constitution, comrade.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This has already been covered many times. I don't feel the need to drag out all the old cites out once again. Heller V DC only dealt
with what a City can do.

This has since been applied to the states, so while true, is moot.

And it specifically allowed the registrations and licensing of handguns and handgun owners...

... insofar that neither were part of the question put before the court and thus in no way upheld by the ruling.

Nothing else.

This is, of course, a lie - Heller did, indeed, say plenty else.

And you are right, Murdock V deals in Religion, therefore, it's strictly Amendment 1...

This is false, as demonstrated; the restrictions noted were plenary and not applied to a specific right.

 

[2aguy]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

Moron, it isn't limited to a religious pamphlet.....it states Rights can't be taxed....

 

[Bush92]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

You can kill a democracy with illegal votes. But we know the history of urban Democrats and their political machines with regards to voter fraud.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

Moron, it isn't limited to a religious pamphlet.....it states Rights can't be taxed....

The Supreme Court can only rule on what is put in front of it. In this case it was about religious pamphlets being taxed under the 1st amendment about freedom of religion. Nothing more. If you play Hey Jude Backwards, you can use your imagination to make it sound to you like it says that the Devil is in the microwave.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

Moron, it isn't limited to a religious pamphlet.....it states Rights can't be taxed....

The Supreme Court can only rule on what is put in front of it. In this case it was about religious pamphlets being taxed under the 1st amendment about freedom of religion.

You've already been told why you're wrong -- it does not matter how many times you choose to disbelieve, you're still wrong.
The restrictions noted were plenary and not applied to a specific right; as such, they apply to all rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

Moron, it isn't limited to a religious pamphlet.....it states Rights can't be taxed....

The Supreme Court can only rule on what is put in front of it. In this case it was about religious pamphlets being taxed under the 1st amendment about freedom of religion.

You've already been told why you're wrong -- it does not matter how many times you choose to disbelieve, you're still wrong.
The restrictions noted were plenary and not applied to a specific right; as such, they apply to all rights.

Don't you actually read what you type? When I am quoting the law, I can't be wrong. I am not taking any side. I am stating facts. So you won another oak leaf cluster.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why does it bother you that the state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a right?

Mostly because I don't think that there's a right for crazy people to own a machine gun hiding in the Militia Amendment.

I do think that the FOID is kind of useless, as they really don't check them, as we saw in the recent Aurora case, where the criminal was able to get one without anyone figuring out that he had done time in MS for stabbing a woman. After he applied for a CCA, they found out about it because someone bothered to look, but no one confiscated his gun, and he shot five of his coworkers.

But since the courts are currently coming up with the bizarre interpretation that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership, then let's take a simpler approach.

You can sell anyone a gun you want to, but you are held liable for what they do with it. Get rid of the protections gun sellers get when their prime customers go on shooting sprees.

^
|
|
This is some dumb shit, right here.

Machine guns are hard to acquire and no new ones are available, thanks to the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment, so you don't have to worry about crazy people owning a machine gun.

The "Militia" Amendment preserves the right of the people...not the militia. Is it really a "bizarre interpretation" to find that "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" is referring to people, rather than a militia? I know you want it to mean that we don't get to have guns, but you are just in denial. Why don't you and your communist ilk amend the constitution? That's really what you want. Quit trying to bullshit your way around the 2nd with interpretations that are directly in conflict with the plain language. Just go ahead and try to amend the constitution and remove the 2nd all together. Tell your politicians to call for amending away gun rights. It is a winning position to take. Trust me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms...

Murdoch:
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant.

These statements are plenary and thus apply to all rights; they are so set apart from the other points because they do not include references to rights specific to the 1st, in contrast to said other points.

Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.

This has already been covered many times. I don't feel the need to drag out all the old cites out once again. Heller V DC only dealt with what a City can do. And it specifically allowed the registrations and licensing of handguns and handgun owners for gun inside the homes for serviceable handguns. Nothing else. The Courts can only rule on what is put in front of them and that is all Heller sued for. He got the right to have the ability to have a reasonable licensing and registration for himself and others inside DC as well as a reasonable registration for serviceable handguns for the home plus, once those other two were met, the right to have a serviceable handgun inside his home.

Heller V did not cover all the crap that many claim it did. Many take the dissenting views as laws. It's not. Dissenting means "Losing Side" in legal terms. The Dissenting side views were many times longer than the winning sides views by a long shot since the winning side's was so basic to begin with. People keep using Heller V for everything other than what it really is. And that is the right to have a reasonable right to have a handgun in your home for home defense.

And you are right, Murdock V deals in Religion, therefore, it's strictly Amendment 1 and has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 2. It's for the freedom of Religion. I can play the Beatles Hey Jude Backwards and if listen long enough and close enough and use my imagination I can hear.......

Heller did make clear that the right to bear arms is not tied to service in a militia, like the retard above continues to ignorantly suggest ("Militia Amendment"). Otherwise, I agree with you on Heller's actual significance on many of these issues. It was a limited ruling.

.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

The effects of an election can be a lot more dangerous than any firearm.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms...

Murdoch:
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant.

These statements are plenary and thus apply to all rights; they are so set apart from the other points because they do not include references to rights specific to the 1st, in contrast to said other points.

Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.

This has already been covered many times. I don't feel the need to drag out all the old cites out once again. Heller V DC only dealt with what a City can do. And it specifically allowed the registrations and licensing of handguns and handgun owners for gun inside the homes for serviceable handguns. Nothing else. The Courts can only rule on what is put in front of them and that is all Heller sued for. He got the right to have the ability to have a reasonable licensing and registration for himself and others inside DC as well as a reasonable registration for serviceable handguns for the home plus, once those other two were met, the right to have a serviceable handgun inside his home.

Heller V did not cover all the crap that many claim it did. Many take the dissenting views as laws. It's not. Dissenting means "Losing Side" in legal terms. The Dissenting side views were many times longer than the winning sides views by a long shot since the winning side's was so basic to begin with. People keep using Heller V for everything other than what it really is. And that is the right to have a reasonable right to have a handgun in your home for home defense.

And you are right, Murdock V deals in Religion, therefore, it's strictly Amendment 1 and has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 2. It's for the freedom of Religion. I can play the Beatles Hey Jude Backwards and if listen long enough and close enough and use my imagination I can hear.......

Heller did make clear that the right to bear arms is not tied to service in a militia, like the retard above continues to ignorantly suggest ("Militia Amendment"). Otherwise, I agree with you on Heller's actual significance on many of these issues. It was a limited ruling.

.

It covered our right to protect our homes with reasonable weapons. And it covered the reasonable registration and licensing of the City so that we have that right. DC stomped all over those things. Heller V wasn't really as far reaching as some idjits in here thinks it was.

 

[Rustic]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Law-abiding people are not violent criminals dumbass

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Law-abiding people are not violent criminals dumbass

They are law abiding citizens until they aren't anymore.

 

[August West]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Law-abiding people are not violent criminals dumbass

Everyone in jail was once a law abiding citizen dumbass.

 

[JoeB131]

You can kill people with just about anything

Yes, you can... with the right training.

Guns make it easy to kill people without training.

But we should totally tolerate 33,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries, 400,000 gun crimes and 27 BILLION in economic losses every year because some of you want to compensate for your "shortcomings".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Law-abiding people are not violent criminals dumbass

And so are people that commit fraud so I guess that's okay by you.

 

[Blues Man]

You can kill people with just about anything

Yes, you can... with the right training.

Guns make it easy to kill people without training.

But we should totally tolerate 33,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries, 400,000 gun crimes and 27 BILLION in economic losses every year because some of you want to compensate for your "shortcomings".

It takes no training to bludgeon a person with a bat or to sink a chef's knife into their gut or to run them down with a car.

Most gun deaths are suicides and suicide is an absolute right. And gun laws won't stop gun crimes because most gun crimes are committed by people who are already barred from gun ownership

And who is suffering those economic losses?

 

[Blues Man]

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

Moron, it isn't limited to a religious pamphlet.....it states Rights can't be taxed....

The Supreme Court can only rule on what is put in front of it. In this case it was about religious pamphlets being taxed under the 1st amendment about freedom of religion.

You've already been told why you're wrong -- it does not matter how many times you choose to disbelieve, you're still wrong.
The restrictions noted were plenary and not applied to a specific right; as such, they apply to all rights.

Don't you actually read what you type? When I am quoting the law, I can't be wrong. I am not taking any side. I am stating facts. So you won another oak leaf cluster.

View attachment 252473
View attachment 252474View attachment 252475

You really need to get a new picture book , Corky.

You are becoming too redundant.

Sorry I don't have a picture that means redundant maybe you can ask your caretaker what it means

 

[Blues Man]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Law-abiding people are not violent criminals dumbass

Everyone in jail was once a law abiding citizen dumbass.

That's a bullshit argument.

or maybe we should lock you up now because after all it's only a matter of time before you kill, rape or rob someone right?