Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: *bang_list; victoria delsoul; travis mcgee; squantos; harpseal; sit-rep; noumenon; DCBryan1...
±
6 posted on 05/07/2002 12:17:44 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sir Gawain
Wow....first the Minnesota GunGrabbers name stolen from em thang and now this ....all in one week :o) I may have to have a kewl drink before I get back on these socialist grabbers like white on rice. Don't give em an inch I say.....drive em back into the sea they crawled from NOW !!

Stay Safe !

21 posted on 05/07/2002 12:27:32 PM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sir Gawain
In the briefs it filed at the Supreme Court after the close of business on Monday, the Solicitor General's office attached the Ashcroft letter and included the following footnote to explain its new position:

"In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

Bump! Bump! Bump!!!

33 posted on 05/07/2002 12:49:37 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson