Illinois judge rules FOID card 'unconstitutional'

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Such declaratory. Many emphatic. And not only wrong, but wrong-headed

Let's give your various argumenta ad nauseum et argumnta ad declarare a fisking, shall we?

---it should be understood that the inalienable right you mention is "as currently interpreted by a right-wing majority on a SCOTUS no longer concerned with precedent." If our nation survives, that will change.

Telepsychology has always been part and parcel of gun control advocacy. Seems "claimed powers of prophecy"
can be added to that list...

---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed".

The State of Minnesota also tried similar word games , and got slapped down 8-1 by the Supremes
for their trouble:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

...Minnesota exempted newspapers from a four percent sales tax set up by the state, but they were subject to a four percent use tax on the costs of ink and paper, which applied to any publication. Each newspaper received an annual tax credit of $4,000 through an exemption from the use tax for the first $100,000 of ink and paper that was used by a publication in a calendar year. However, in 1974, 11 papers used more than $100,000 in ink and paper, making them liable for the use tax; in 1975, 13 papers were required to pay the tax. The Minnesota Tribune argued that it should be refunded for the use taxes that it had paid because the law unconstitutionally restricted the freedom of the press under the First Amendment and also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Opinions

Majority

Sandra Day O'Connor (Author)
Warren Earl Burger
William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
John Paul Stevens
Harry Andrew Blackmun

Strict scrutiny is appropriate for analyzing this restriction on the freedom of the press, which specifically targets an area protected by the First Amendment. The state argues that it has a substantial interest in raising revenue, but it could accomplish this goal by taxing all businesses generally rather than the press. While the press is also benefited by being exempted from the four percent sales tax, differential treatment on its face is constitutionally questionable because it creates a precedent for future differential treatment that could be more burdensome on the press. It also would be difficult to implement a rule that tied the constitutionality of a measure to the effective tax burdens that would result, since courts lack the expertise to evaluate different methods of taxation.

Moreover, this ink and paper tax is unconstitutional not only because it treats the press differently but also because it treats a certain small group of newspapers differently. The state may not be allowed to devise a tax scheme to single out certain members of the press under any circumstances, no matter how compelling the interest that it cites. A tax of which the entire burden is borne by a small part of the whole resembles a penalty for large newspapers rather than an effort to favor smaller newspapers...

---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings

Which "prior SCOTUS rulings" would those be? Kindly enlighten our ignorance, O Wise One.

---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone...

And then, two sentences later, you do that very thing:

... I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible.

Of course, that's not a self-contradiction to *you*- because you don't think people have a right to keep and bear arms...