Posted on 06/12/2002 4:09:41 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
No possibility. Ashcroft has been pretty clear that he thinks the right to bear arms is given by the government, and can be revoked at anytime with "reasonable regulations".
I agree. That is the reason why I am so disappointed that the Supreme Court refused to hear Emerson. There is no logic to any ruling which fails to protect my right to keep and bear arms from infringement. There is absolutely no record of our founders being concerned about the lethality of the arms protected by the Second Amendment. "Every terrible implement of war" was one description of the protected arms.
All of this NFA 34 and "assault weapons" nonsense would have to end with any decision based on the record. The so-called "moderates" on the court must have made it clear that they would refuse to be bound by logic in order to cause the situation we see now. Now that even liberal legal experts are understanding the clear meaning of the Second Amendment, there is no way for the Supreme Court to render a decision except in favor of our Founder's wisdom.
No.If you read the original story and threads about this,it is clear he and Bubba-2 are doing everything they can do to limit the reach of any SC decision. They go out of their way to state that although the 2nd is a individual right,the federal government has a right and a responsibility to regulate firearms and firearms ownership/possession.
... and hence, we see them deny cert. like cowards. Could there possibly be some grand purpose to the betterment of future gun rights for them to deny cert in these two cases? Not only don't I see how it could be possible, but I also find it objectionable that both the circuit court contradictions are allowed to stand, and that the tortured and weak reasoning offered by Olson as a reason to deny cert, appeared to stick. It looked to me like he was throwing the court softballs, if anything, the logic was so weak, and instead, SCOTUS did as he asked and denied cert.
... and that, in fact, every single federal gun control law is Constitutional. Unbelievable!
As a political move it is a deft one. As a true believer move (as both of us probably are) is sucks eggs. Most of the domestic agenda is starting to suck eggs as well but what can I do? The pres. is concentrating on keeping Saddam (and others) from getting nukes and he's thrown everything else over the side. A nice benefit for the liberals who have someone who will "play ball" now.
Oh, and lest I forget, Jim Jeffords can still kiss my A%%.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
One may be a citizen of a State, and not an U.S. citizen. Conversely, one may be a Federal Citizen, and have no State citizenship. (i.e. born on a military installation overseas)
An individual (currently) volunteers to place themself under the UCMJ, just as one runs for Federal office. As the Constitution does confer some privileges to elected officials:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
they also (should) give up their right to bear arms when they voluntarily travel to D.C.; as do all who choose to live there.
In D.C. and other Federal areas; they make the rules and any rule they make is Constitutional. Federal citizens have only those rights confered by the Kongress. If you don't like it, move to Texas.
Come on, despite all that legal mumbo fango loopo holo jargon, don't you believe that the US bill of rights applies to all US citizen regardless of what federal police state they live in?
Is DC's absurd position regarding gun control versus gun violence the result of congressional rulings or the limited authority of it's mayor and administration?
(I already knew that DC is under federal jurisdiction but can't see congress mandating restrictions beyond the constitution there and not being successful in doing the same elsewhere. Particularly since the norm is for government to lay fewer constraints on itself than on us common folk)
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.