Posted on 05/07/2002 12:09:03 PM PDT by GeneD
When you put it that way, it's really a no-brainer.
Anti-gun sentiment in Kalifornia reached a fever pitch in just a decade. This issue was the canary in the coal mine, reminding all of us of the inter-relationship of our rights. The right to keep and bear arms protects our communities, our families, and our property. When the Second Amendment is re-established, it will be time to turn our attention to returning the government to one of Constitutional limits since our communities, our families, and our property will still be at considerable risk.
You know the country is in bad shape when it is expected that a president be congratulated for doing the most basic part of the job to "uphold and defend".
This rates a "so what". Get back to me when he lobbies congress to repeal gun laws and personally repeals the law by fiat regulations created by his direct reports in various executive branch agencies.
I'm not holding my breath.
Regards
J.R.
Third parties have good record in pushing agendas. Not all of them good. The most successful third party in history never elected anyone but saw their whole agenda enacted. The Socialist workers party.
It can work for good as well as the bad that they did.
I still maintain that there are more similarities than differences, and that those are more of scope and detail than of substance. Oh well, ya take good news where you can find it these days. Regards
When the time comes that nobody running for office would dare challenge the right to keep and bear arms, you may safely choose a different single issue on which to focus.
Our winner-takes-all system insures that we will only have two parties. Until the Democrat party ( the party of Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and Kennedy ) is dead, you must vote against it.
I agree. I really hope that SCOTUS ignores the briefs and hears the cases. First and formost the GCA and the Firearm Owners Protection act of 1986 are unconstitutional. True, gov't can tax machine guns but they cannot prevent ownership of newly mfr'd weapons as they have done since 1986. They can require certain safeguards for the general protection of society but they cannot legally prevent ownership. SCOTUS has ruled this in past cases. This is merely a minor victory in an attempt to please both sides of the argument. Should SCOTUS accept both cases & rule in favor, the Feds would have some real logistic problems on their hands, (and I'd have me a new H&K MP5 ;)
Is this good news or not?
Agreed. While it does re-affirm Ashcroft's stated support of RKBA, in substance it appears to amount to no more than legal opinions of Justice Department lawyers attached to a couple of briefs. There is nothing here than can't be undone by dissenting opinions attached to briefs submitted by a future administration.
----------------------------------
Not at all, as you can see by the correction made necessary by your self delusion.
This 'decision' does however take the wind out of your fellas ludicrous contention that 'states rights' can overrule the 2nd amendment. -- Unless you were giving us your own bill of goods.
Never have I said anything about States' Rights over-ruling the 2d amendment. That is just one more lie.
It is obvious that the 2d is a catagorical statement not limited in its application, like the first, to Congress. But I wouldn't expect you to comprehend something so subtle.
Well, there are several things here. Had Ashcroft won, the Senate would have stayed GOP just as it was in 2000 and Hatch would have chaired the Judiciary and the GOP would have had a one vote edge on the committee. Whomever Bush sent up would have been quickly confirmed (after minimal hearings-- Hatch would have held the gavel).
Had Ashcroft won, Talent likely would have won as well. Bush would have been free to choose Ashcroft as AG and Talent could have chosen Roy Blunt to succeed him.
Had Bush chosen someone else, possible choices would have been former House Judiciary member and failed senate candidate and pro-gun Bill McCollum, current Judiciary chair and pro-gun F. James Sensenbrenner, pro-CCW Frank Keating or pro-gun Mark Racicot.
She is a very good reporter. One of the few there who does straight reporting and understands her beat completely. Over the years, I have found her reports on Supreme Court cases to be quite good. Because, unlike some "reporters," it seems she actually reads the Court's opinions before writing about them.
Which brings me to a point I've always wondered about: Why do lawyers use so many pairs of briefs in a single day that they need a case to carry them all? And, is the case compartmentalized inside to keep the dirty separate from the clean?
William Tell- Thou hast nailed it! My hat is off to thee, Sir.
-- Ashcrofts 'decision' is in reality a sugar tit distraction, thrown to conservatives in an attempt to forestall further such USSC judgements on individual liberties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.