Skip to comments.
Lindh lawyers cite Second Amendment
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 5/16/02
| New York Times
Posted on 05/16/2002 4:05:00 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Stone Mountain
Silver lining?
To: Stone Mountain
Query did adullabh pay the tax required for possesion of a class III weapon.
If not send the ATF in and bar b que.
3
posted on
05/16/2002 4:08:02 PM PDT
by
dts32041
To: Stone Mountain
How to befriend the presiding judge! Bwahahaha!
4
posted on
05/16/2002 4:08:23 PM PDT
by
verity
To: Stone Mountain
Bearing and using are not the same.
5
posted on
05/16/2002 4:09:29 PM PDT
by
lepton
To: Stone Mountain
I guess his lawyers have completely given up on fighting the other 29 charges.
To: Stone Mountain
They are seeking the dismissal of a charge that Lindh used firearms and "destructive devices" in crimes of violence.This will be thrown out almost immediately. The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not imply a right to use arms in a crime.
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Stone Mountain
Johnny Boy should have been left in that Afghan prison to be dealt with by the judicial system of Afghanistan, instead of being rescued by the US forces to become (eventually) a media celebrity. A major blunder, this rescue was, as we've been saying from the beginning. The Bushies have been asking for the circus and by gosh, they've got it!
To: Thane_Banquo
This will be thrown out almost immediately. The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not imply a right to use arms in a crime. Exactly.
To: verity
"There is nothing illegal about providing military training, and fighting in a foreign military conflict is not per se illegal," George Harris, one of Lindh's attorneys, wrote. "Central to First Amendment freedoms is the right to associate with unpopular and disfavored groups."
To: Stone Mountain
Man, these prosecutors today---my God!
Please tell me if you have heard anything about this Defendant using arms IN the US. I have heard of none.
These grotesquely juvenile prosecutors are trying to enforce their unconstitutional US disarmament laws against US citizens in cases where such a citizen "keeps and bears arms" in a foreign country!
These prosecutors look at their set of 'facts' and write indictments as if they were writing answers to an open ended question on a law school exam.
Shock treatments, anyone?
To: yendu bwam
"The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not imply a right to use arms in a crime. "That's right. The crime should have been treason against the U.S. He gave aid, comfort and assistance to the enemies of the U.S., al queda in particular. There were plenty of witnesses. What did they charge him with?
"The indictment alleges that Lindh received military training in a military camp run by al Qaeda, but it does not claim that he provided anything to al Qaeda or the Taliban other than himself, which, his attorneys argue, is not illegal.
His atty. is confused, he admits his client is guilty of treason, but fails to recognize it himself.
13
posted on
05/16/2002 4:31:26 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: RightWhale
LOL!!! Someone here on FR predicted this on an earlier thread but at the time he/she was joking (well at least I thought they were)!
14
posted on
05/16/2002 4:33:33 PM PDT
by
lizma
To: spunkets
The crime should have been treason against the U.S. If this wasn't treason, nothing could be.
To: Stone Mountain
charging Lindh with firearms violations would violate his Second Amendment right "as an individual" to use and possess a firearm. However, nothing in the Second Amendment gives him the right to use firearms -- or any other tool -- to murder his countrymen. Why prosecutors are worrying about firearms violations when the little spoiled puke is guilty of treason is beyond me.
But it is a delicious irony that to defend him, a product of the radical liberal Left, his attorneys are using an argument straight from the canons of the Right: the right to keep and bear arms. No doubt his parents and friends fail to appreciate the hypocrisy.
16
posted on
05/16/2002 4:47:55 PM PDT
by
IronJack
To: Stone Mountain
Yesterday the WSJ asked rhetorically speaking, what's next AbdulHamid invoking the 2nd amendment? ANd here it is.
In a way, i hope he gets acquitted. He doesn't realise he's a lot safer in custody than on the American Street.
To: *John Walker Trial
To: bang_list
19
posted on
05/16/2002 6:46:16 PM PDT
by
Djarum
To: bang_list
20
posted on
05/16/2002 6:46:19 PM PDT
by
Djarum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson