The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 7, 2015, 11:12 AM   #151
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,284
Quote:
The question is will they get rid of the ridiculous zoning requirements or just make minor tweaks and force this all over again?
Given the city's post-McDonald policy of cooperating as little as humanly possible, I'd wager the latter.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2015, 11:01 PM   #152
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,670
When do the big lawsuits come for all the foot dragging, when do these (censored) have to face real consequences? If the answer is never, then this will continue until my grandson is dust.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 11:51 PM   #153
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 668
Ezell II was just decided today in our favor! Chicago's zoning laws that effectively banned firing ranges in the city have been ruled unconstitutional by a 7th Circuit appeals court: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1897637:S:0

The requirement that ranges be in a manufacturing district was thrown out, the laws requiring they be certain distances from residential areas, schools, daycares, etc was thrown out, and the law placing age restrictions on those using the ranges was thrown out.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 01:36 AM   #154
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 834
Rahm must be shaking his tiny little fist about that.


Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 11:49 AM   #155
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,547
Here's a good discussion of Ezell II from Eugene Volokh:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.978d2bab8179
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old January 20, 2017, 06:56 AM   #156
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
When do the big lawsuits come for all the foot dragging, when do these (censored) have to face real consequences? If the answer is never, then this will continue until my grandson is dust.
Probably never, as a citizen, if I violate someones constitutional rights, I have likely committed a crime. But the people in government regularly use their powers to stomp on constitutional rights with impunity. The law may struck from the books, but those who willfully violate the rights of others through the application of government powers will pay no price.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old January 20, 2017, 11:25 AM   #157
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
But the people in government regularly use their powers to stomp on constitutional rights with impunity. The law may struck from the books, but those who willfully violate the rights of others through the application of government powers will pay no price.
until the REVOLUTION!!!!!!!


Those in power, stomping on the natural rights of others has been going on as long as there have been those in power. I don't see that changing.

Do, however make sure you understand, and make the distinction between those who do it willfully and gleefully, and those who are just doing their job, the best way they know how, and the way they were taught.

I agree, it is a pleasing thought to think that these people should be held personally responsible for their official acts, but this is America, and as a principle, we don't do that, unless they actually break existing law. (and, sadly, not often enough, even then...)

It's another moral point to be proud of, something Americans do that happens too seldom in the rest of the world. The standard was set by our Founders, who, after the Revolution, when they had the power, did NOT round up all the Crown agents and hang them. Who did NOT behead the nobility in job lots.

Yes, some were tarred and feathered, beaten, run out of town on a rail. True people suffered, and I'm certain there were some fatalities, but by and large these were isolated individual instances. Our former rulers and their servants were not executed, imprisoned for life, sent to a gulag, or anything of the sort, generally. We simply told them to find a new life, preferably somewhere else...

What other nation has fought a war for freedom, and then treated its former masters with the degree of fairness and forgiveness that we did????

Yes, while I personally would be happy to see Congressperson Feinschumenbaumbergstein spend the rest of their natural life UNDER the jail, (or worse) that's because I'm small, petty, vicious, venal and vindictive.

Satisfying as that might be, they don't actually deserve it, and we don't do it, which shows both ourselves and the world that we actually ARE better people than many make us out to be.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 21, 2017, 11:38 AM   #158
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Well said, 44 AMP, but let's draw some distinctions here too.

When state or local legislators legitimately debate an issue, ask relevant questions, let both (or all) sides provide input and transparently make a decision that may be unconstitutional, there's room to doubt evil intent --as opposed to evil or prejudiced intent.

But when these same officials emerge from their legislative committees and say things like "We're satisfied that we've made it as difficult as possible to [exercise a civil right] in light of the court's decision" they have removed any doubt of their contempt for the civil right(s) in question. They should therefore be held to account under Title 18, Part I, §241 and §242 (conspiracy, denial of civil rights).

While most city, county and state officials operate under some form of limited immunity for official acts, when it's evident they went to great lengths to limit as many people as possible from exercising their rights they allow that veil of immunity to be pierced. And, IMO, the consequences of such actions should land on them like an anvil.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old January 21, 2017, 03:52 PM   #159
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,584
The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Civil rights are those granted by the government where my God given, natural, and birth rights are beyond any government or societal management.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old January 21, 2017, 07:55 PM   #160
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Actually, it is a civil right. Yes, it is a natural right, a God given right, if you prefer, but it is also a civil right. It is a right of the civil population, it is not a martial right, exclusive to the military.

SO, in that context, it is a civil right.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 22, 2017, 08:28 AM   #161
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootistPRS
The right to keep and bear arms is not a civil right.
Civil rights are those granted by the government where my God given, natural, and birth rights are beyond any government or societal management.
I disagree. The source of a right does not (wholly) determine the nature of the right. Rights may be civil, criminal, statutory, or contractual in nature.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 22, 2017, 10:52 AM   #162
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,670
Did not Heller state that the 2A is a "core, fundamental Constitutional right"? I'm nowhere hear a lawyer in any way shape or form, but does that nto qualify it as a civil right, like free speech and the tattered 4A?
armoredman is offline  
Old January 24, 2017, 11:29 AM   #163
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,614
I'm closing this thread, as it has diverged from discussing the case at hand to a discussion of what constitutes a civil right.

Discussion of the actual case (Ezell v. Chicago) may be made here: Chicago loses Ezell ---- again (23 Jan`17)

Discussion as to what constitutes a civil right will require another thread.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07425 seconds with 9 queries