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

The 9th Circuit - Lots of (liberal education) - Zero Common Sense.
1 posted on 05/07/2003 2:32:28 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Happy2BMe
bump
2 posted on 05/07/2003 3:11:43 AM PDT by Jaxter (Proud Republican voter since 1972.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bang_list; Joe Brower; Travis McGee; Squantos
2A bump.
3 posted on 05/07/2003 3:38:40 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.

Ah, if only all of our judges had this attitude.

4 posted on 05/07/2003 3:51:37 AM PDT by libertylover (Grateful to all who have served.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
The big question is will the Supreme Court take this case. that is a very big unknown. Four justices must vote to greant cert. Now perhaps these could be four liberals who wish the Second to go away and think tthey have sufficient votes to accomplish this or perhaps four conservatives who seek to enforce the RKBA. Anyone who says they know what will happen is a liar.
5 posted on 05/07/2003 4:38:23 AM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Henrietta
ping
11 posted on 05/07/2003 6:22:28 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (NEO-COMmunistS should be identified as such.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
Excellent! Thanks for the post, Happy2BMe!
13 posted on 05/07/2003 6:54:22 AM PDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
BTTT
20 posted on 05/07/2003 9:05:06 AM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
I just donated.
21 posted on 05/07/2003 10:06:58 AM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Happy2BMe
"As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.". This seems to be quite common, especially in referance to the "Miller" decision. What I believe is the first Circuit Court case to refer to "Miller", "Cases" the first circuit dissed the Supreme Court by stating

Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feet that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities, -almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line.

IOW, "we didn't like the implications of the Supreme Court's decision, so we'll ignore it and press on"

23 posted on 05/07/2003 10:26:04 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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