How Do Your Views Compare With the Court?

That's because my political views lean left on many social issues.

My political views also lean right on other issues such as gun ownership, states rights, late term abortions, and immigration reform.

Wayne, Registered weapon to me means gun control.
Thus a trick/rigged question. Results for me=a no vote.

But yes you can have whatever weapon you want. If you want to mount a machine gun on your porch I'm for it.
Please take out those ground squirrels(rats) that the neighbors are feeding as your first target.

Tilt, there's no hope for you. You seem to find a conspiracy in everything.. even something as simple as a question asking how you would vote on an issue the Supreme Court has already voted on. It's not a trick/rigged question.

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand. The question is not about how you feel on the right to bear arms. It's a question asking how you would vote on a particular case that went before the Supreme Court.

So you voted "no," meaning you disagree that an individual should have a right to have a registered handgun at home?

1. I agree. Each individual should have a right to have a registered handgun at home.
2. I actually oppose the ban on late-term abortions. There are always cases that could hurt the mother. This is not a black or white/yes or no issue.
3. Disagree. I have a big problem with corporations using their profits to publicly urge voting for or against candidates.
4. Again, this is not a yes/no issue. They haven't been to trial...only charged? Does this challenge take away from US citizens who are challenging their accusations? US citizens should get first challenge, then if there is time/room for non-US citizens, they get their chance. Then again, they should get a chance to say something some type of court. Face it, law enforcement does jump to judgement...for anyone accused of anything.
5. No. A child could be someone that is 17 1/2... Again, it all depends on the circumstances.
6. Yes. That doesn't mean they will. Circumstances should dictate this...a 17 year old that has been in trouble with the law for a long time...or a 17 year old that was in a vehicle with someone who decided to commit the crime but didn't know about it before hand...these cannot be treated as the same crime with the same punishment.

I also have a big problem with question #1. Hopefully - this is not the courts problem but the problem of the media that is asking the question. Many times the people who ask the questions come from the east coast - and are conditioned to use the word "registered" along with the word "firearm".

This has been drilled into the heads of more than 2 generations now - it has been used by hollywood in the TV shows we watch during the week, and in the movies we pay to see at the box office.

They - when I say they- I mean the progressive liberal media, the hollywood producers and leftist actors, want us to be comfortable thinking that every firearm has to necessarly be "registered". It shows their ignorance at the least - and their outright anti-gun attitude at best.

It's a red flag everytime I hear it - and I'm glad that I am not alone.

I keep saying it, but nobody on the right is listening.

The "registered handgun" question is based on the McDonald v. Chicago case that the Supreme Court recently ruled on.

"Registered handgun" is not a trick question and it's not a question from the "east coast." It an actual court case involving the City of Chicago..

The question is not about how you feel on the right to bear arms. It's a question asking how you would vote on a particular case that went before the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wayne, you erred in your interpretation of the case.

Their is no enforceable law that says a weapon must be
registered. Thats an old socialist trick to insert weasal
wording. To "register", to allow said word is like agreeing
to compromise. This American will never compromise my
Constitutional rights. Is that to extreme for you ..

Now you're misinterpreting the Supremem court case, Tilt.

McDonald challenged four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:

* Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
* Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
* Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
* Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

Only a socialist trying to chip away at the Constitution
could interpet McDonald v Chicago like you did, Wayne.
Re-read it slowly, take breaks if you don't understand it.

Tilt wrote: Wayne, you erred in your interpretation of the case.

Their is no enforceable law that says a weapon must be
registered.

I give up. The information I posted was from case itself, via the peititon to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was over registration.

Immediately upon announcement of this
Court’s decision in Heller, Petitioners brought this action
in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, challenging various
Chicago ordinances as violating their Second and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. At issue are Chicago’s
laws (1) banning the registration of handguns, thus
effecting a broad handgun ban;2 (2) requiring that
guns be registered prior to their acquisition by
Chicago residents, which is not always feasible;3 (3)
mandating that guns be re-registered on an annual
basis, including the payment of what amounts to an
annual tax on the exercise of Second Amendment
rights;4 and (4) rendering any gun permanently nonregisterable
if its registration lapses.5 The district
court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343.

Respondent City of Chicago had denied each individual
Petitioner’s attempt to register a handgun on
account of the handgun registration ban. App. 34-45.
2 Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-050(c).
3 Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-090.
4 Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-200.
5 Chicago Mun. Code § 8-20-200(c).
6
Petitioners Orlov and David Lawson were also denied
handgun registrations on account of the city’s preacquisition
registration requirement. App. 37, 40.
Petitioners McDonald and David Lawson are the
registered owners of long arms, and are thus subjected
to the city’s re-registration requirements.

Why don't you try rereading it slowly, Tilt? Particularly the parts that are in bold.

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-conten ... ition1.pdf