Skip to comments.Hannity Guest Literally Covers His Ears In Protest During Gun Debate Segment
Posted on 01/04/2013 6:55:13 PM PST by TurboZamboni
Sean Hannity continued the national debate over gun rights tonight with a particular focus on the New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of every gun owner in multiple counties. Guest Leo Terrell was particularly fired up on the issue, and when it looked like he was about to really rage at Hannity, he simply covered his ears with his hands to avoid listening.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativevideos.com ...
Well, what a childish little bych he is. Send him to the romper room with his sippy cup of koolaid while the grown-ups continue their discussion.
He probably played the exact same childish stunt when his mommy told him why she couldn’t spend the rent money on toys and candy. Mrs. Terell, is this your child? Please come to the Hannity show and pick up your child, Mrs. Terell...little Leo is out of sorts and needs his nappy time.
That of course is Leo The Moron who loves OJ Simpson and probably adores every cop killer in the country. Its laughable to see him of the show if any opposing point of view is uttered he starts yelling like nut.
It would have been more fun to cut off his audio, and it would have pissed him off more.
Imagine a fairy tale world where you can tap your heals three times and the impossible happens. Now imagine two fantasy scenarios. You can make your wish and one of these two things will completely disapear from your typical American large city:
Either: All black and Hispanic people.
Or: All guns.
Which would result in a city with fewer murders? Less crime?
It’s fun question to ask libs and watch their heads explode!
Spot on Cajun... but he’ll never do that because he’ll have to forfeit his job. Just like all the others. It’s all a grand show... nothing but WWE wrestling crap.
US v. Miller was in 1939.
The court of original jurisdiction dismissed the case against Layton and Miller on Second Amendment grounds.
The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court which accepted the case.
The Supreme Court was asked by the government to rule that the defendants were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were not members of the Militia.
By failing to respond to this argument, the Supreme Court rejected it. Had it been necessary that Miller was a member of a Militia in order to be protected then no further findings would be necessary.
Instead, the Supreme Court considered the argument by the government that the weapon in question was not suitable for use by a Militia and therefor the Second Amendment didn't protect Miller's use of such a weapon.
The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, but pointed out that it had no information on the record to determine whether the short-barreled shotgun is useful to a Militia. The record was empty because the lower trial court had not found it necessary to examine the issue; no doubt, because the Second Amendment does not say that only some arms are protected.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's appeal of the lower court dismissal and remanded the case back to that court for further findings regarding the nature of the weapon. (Typically, the Supreme Court is a court of appeals and deals with matters of law, using lower court proceedings for determining matters of fact.)
Before any trial was held, one of the defendants took a plea bargain and the other died, so no trial was ever held.
By refusing to take on any other Second Amendment cases, that Supreme Court, and later Supreme Courts, let stand rulings by the various Circuit Courts of Appeal that completely mis-stated the ruling in Miller as one which established that the Second Amendment is a "collective right", which is legal nonsense. This resulted in many courts denying standing to sue the government in Second Amendment cases because nobody qualified as "a Militia".
With the recent Heller decision, the charade has ended and the Second Amendment is recognized as an individual right, the right includes the right to use arms in self-defense, and the later McDonald decision bars infringement of the right by states and municipalities.
That is the impossible solution. It is already illegal for nearly all people to have guns in Chicago, yet the criminals have plenty.
The number of murders in Chicago would dramatically drop if all people were allowed to keep and bear arms as required by the Constitution.
There might be a little uptick for a few months while the really violent criminals were weeded out, then the murder rate would drop.
I wonder if he just came on the show to get a Ruths Chris steak certificate.
Part II recounts the history of the case. It shows Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant. It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case ar- ranged by the government and designed to support the constitu- tionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history. This essay concludes that Miller is coherent, but largely ir- relevant to the contemporary debate over the meaning of the Sec- ond Amendment. Miller was a Second Amendment test case, teed up with a nominal defendant by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. But the Supreme Court issued a surprisingly narrow decision. Essentially, it held that the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. While dicta suggest the Second Amendment guarantees an individ- ual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service, dicta are not precedent.7 In other words, Miller did not adopt a the- ory of the Second Amendment guarantee, because it did not need one.
www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/.../ecm_pro_060964.pdf - Cached
God bless you, Jack Black!
I love it!
Dicta is not officially precedent, but can become so, with more strength than various real rulings, if future judges like it. This was the case with the infamous Footnote Four, which controls constitutional challenges to this day.
Interesting. The scene transpired as such: Leo Terrell was ranting about how “mentally unstable” individuals should be reported to the authorities and thereby, we would enable the government to prevent them from acquiring weapons of any kind. To which, Sean asked him “You were friends with “OJ Simpson, weren’t you?” which caused Terrell to go off the deep end, yelling “Oh, so NOW you’re bringing in OJ!” and that’s when he covered his ears.
Can’t bring up OJ - that’s racist! LOL
Very childish. Leo Terrell probably also sucks his thumb and wets his bed ...
Not likely. They'd just murder each other with knives, blunt instruments, and bare hands and feet.
The problem isn't weapons.
The problem is a completely degenerate urban 'culture', CREATED by the socialist democRat Party vultures in Big Media and Big Government.
Miller isn’t much good as a precedent for anything. Miller was dead at the time, and didn’t argue the case. No defense at the supreme court was presented.
The embarrassment is that the federal government prosecuted a case against a dead man. The court recognized that, (duh!) and stated that ‘in the absence of judicial notice....’ meaning that they knew it was true despite being absent from the government’s case.
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.