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

Skip to comments.

Judge John Roberts on Second Amendment
Washington Post ^ | 9-14-2005 | Russ Feingold and John Roberts

Posted on 09/15/2005 7:12:34 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan

FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.

You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.

FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.

In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.

The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.

So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; issues; johnroberts; roberts; robertshearings; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-149 next last
To: Aetius
I'm shocked that Feingold claims to believe in the correct 'Indivivual right' interpretation.

Is this just something he says to mollify hunters in Wisconsin?

Feingold can and will say anything. Doesn't mean he'd vote that way.

I've seen him look straight into the camera during a campaign debate and say exactly the opposite of what his actual vote in the Senate said. His whole *maverick* act is a charade, but he pulls it off, over and over again. Extremely frustrating because in reality, he's probably the most radical liberal in the Senate (although even his *big ideas* aren't as grand on the socialism scale as Hitlery's).

51 posted on 09/15/2005 8:15:37 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XavierLarry

Did not know that....

Personally, I fail to see how some measures, such as keeping WMDs out of the hands of ordinary citizens, cannot be a violation of the second amendment from this interpretation, but still a *good thing*. And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....


52 posted on 09/15/2005 8:20:08 PM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

Feingold is only sounding pro-gun because he knows that to be openly anti-gun kills the Dems at the ballot box. He's just like 99 percent of the Democrats, who would trash the Second Amendment in a heartbeat. Remember, they had majorities in the House and Senate in 1934 and in 1968. Look what we got, two very bad laws that directly contradict the Second Amendment.


53 posted on 09/15/2005 8:20:25 PM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocH
No contest here on the moral caliber of Feingold.

However, aren't these her words?

(BTW: I wish President Bush would have said them tonight as he was calling for increased use of federal military troops to police civilians.)

========================

(From the article body, this thread.)

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right.

Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns.

And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.


54 posted on 09/15/2005 8:22:16 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (Viva La MIGRA - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

They forget the power structure as it applies. Individual, Family, Town, County, State and then way down on the bottom is supposed to be the Federal Government made up of representatives of the people from their perspective states and regions within that state.


55 posted on 09/15/2005 8:22:27 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: XavierLarry

You are exactly right. The right to keep and bear Arms comes from God.


56 posted on 09/15/2005 8:27:14 PM PDT by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GW and Twins Pawpaw; XavierLarry; Socratic; crz; Dan from Michigan; DocH; Conspiracy Guy; ...
* * *

Katrina Educates World On Need For Owning Guns

* * *

When your life is in danger, you don't want to rely on a police force that is stretched way too thin. And the last thing you want to hear when you call 9-1-1 is, "All our operators are busy right now...."

That might just be the last thing you ever hear.


57 posted on 09/15/2005 8:33:35 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (Viva La MIGRA - LONG LIVE THE BORDER PATROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
The thing is if he says it is an individual right like I want him to, he may be forced to recuse himself from 2A rulings.

Exactly what the antigun leftist swine were hoping for.

Roberts had to walk a fine line in the hearings between committing himself to a position on issues that may come before the court and not lying to his inquisitors. I would like to have seen a more ardent originalist nominated, but I think Roberts acquitted himself very well during the hearings.

58 posted on 09/15/2005 8:33:44 PM PDT by epow (Vegetarian - old Indian word for "poor shot".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: epow
" That is a flat out lie. There is no such indication whatsoever in the Miller decision."

I'd have to read the other comments Rogers made and look at Miller again, before I'd conclude on the remark. It's a mistake though to conclude "militia" is a collective that holds right. It's the individuals that hold the right and they make up militia.

A simple rephrase illustrates the point.

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.

The people retain the right, not the collective "electorate". The people simply make up the electorate.

59 posted on 09/15/2005 8:34:48 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Actually, even that's not right. ... Is there any other case where the government, after "winning", has offered a plea-bargain for time served?




I don't see the disagreement.


60 posted on 09/15/2005 8:37:16 PM PDT by Pirogue Captain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

I say we fight it out in the streets, winner takes the day. Settled for good until the idiots raise their ugly heads again...It's a cycle, doncha know--I'm ready.


61 posted on 09/15/2005 8:41:39 PM PDT by brushcop (We lift up our military serving in harm's way and pray for total victory and a safe return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
eraser2005 said: "Personally, I fail to see how some measures, such as keeping WMDs out of the hands of ordinary citizens, cannot be a violation of the second amendment from this interpretation, but still a *good thing*. "

There were no "weapons of mass destruction" at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. But armies would routinely use fire to force an enemy out of a stronghold. During the civil war, dead animals would be catapulted into strongholds to reduce the habitability of the stronghold through disease and pollution of water. The fact is that no weapon was exempted by the Second Amendment. It protects all arms. If the anti-gunners don't like it, then they should seek a new amendment.

eraser2005 also said: "And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....

You won't see it as an infringement of freedom of speech to register your books, then, will you? You don't expect to be able to transfer a book to another person without government permission, do you? And make sure that your reading license is renewed on time or the BATFEB (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Books) will send a SWAT team to your home to kill your pets and kids and burn your house to the ground.

Would it change your mind if it was possible to prove that such measures do not benefit the public? Are there gun registration and training requirements in Vermont? Is there any indication that they are the crime capital of the US or that they ever suffered in the slightest degree from the lack of such infringements?

Come to the People's Republic of Kalifornia and buy a handgun. You will need to pay for training every five years, pay to undergo a criminal background check, wait ten days before you can take delivery, pay for a trigger lock or sign an affidavit that you have a safe, and buy a hard case and a lock to transport the handgun home. Make sure that you choose a handgun on the states "approved" list.

Don't even dream of being able to carry this gun outside your home. In most counties of Kalifornia you would have to be a close friend of the Sheriff to get a concealed carry permit.

All of this is why we have virtually no crime in Kalifornia. Yeah...right.

62 posted on 09/15/2005 8:51:09 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The people retain the right, not the collective "electorate". The people simply make up the electorate.

Right. And every judge and legislator with an IQ higher than a turnip knows that as well as we do. Leftist antigun judges and politicians are some of the most brazen liars on this ball of dirt.

63 posted on 09/15/2005 8:51:29 PM PDT by epow (Vegetarian - old Indian word for "poor shot".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
I agree with your guarded optimism. Roberts seems to have enough knowledge of Miller to grasp the essence, and in light of the fact that the "gun issue" has not been brought up by the MSM as a cudgel against him indicates an interest on his part...

Perhaps somebody with more knowledge of judicial types could speculate on how likely a judge with Robert's time on the bench is to have a fairly detailed and essentially correct knowledge of Miller? Isn't Miller pretty obscure except to the gun rights crowd?
64 posted on 09/15/2005 8:52:02 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brushcop
brushcop said: "I say we fight it out in the streets, winner takes the day. Settled for good until the idiots raise their ugly heads again.."

I'm busy tonight. What are you doing tomorrow?

65 posted on 09/15/2005 8:54:36 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1
"how likely a judge with Robert's time on the bench is to have a fairly detailed and essentially correct knowledge of Miller?"

Very, Roberts knows all about it.

66 posted on 09/15/2005 9:03:21 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1
M1911A1 said: "Isn't Miller pretty obscure except to the gun rights crowd?"

And, one would hope, to the "defenders of the Constitution" types such as would make suitable Supreme Court Justices.

Roberts has suggested that he has much to learn. He does seem to be an extremely bright guy. If he doesn't "get it" then there is little hope for our nation. It is somewhat comforting that he could see the need for the Supremes to straighten things out due to the conflict at the Circuit Court level.

67 posted on 09/15/2005 9:03:24 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: brushcop
I say we fight it out in the streets, winner takes the day. Settled for good until the idiots raise their ugly heads again

Well I'm too old and sick to take part in that kind of solution, and it would be hard even for you young bucks to go up against attack helicopters and Abrams tanks with deer rifles and sidearms.

But I think we can beat them in the political arena if all gun owners would just stand together to elect legislators and presidents who understand and respect the intent of the Constitution's authors. If even 1/2 of America's 80+ million gun owners would let it be known in no uncertain terms that they will vote against any candidate who doesn't support the clear intent of the 2nd A no matter what his or her positions on all other issues may be, our full RKBA would be restored in a NY minute.

68 posted on 09/15/2005 9:11:45 PM PDT by epow (Vegetarian - old Indian word for "poor shot".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

You're absolutely right - it appears he has at least the beginnings of the kind of nuanced understanding of Miller that could lead to positive results for gun owners.


69 posted on 09/15/2005 9:12:24 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I'm sure he does, based on his reply. Certainly it was more detailed than what I would expect in the post Bork environment.

I'm just wondering, are there a lot of judges on Robert's level who wouldn't have detailed knowledge of Miller, or are they all concentrated in the 9th circuit? :-)
70 posted on 09/15/2005 9:12:46 PM PDT by M1911A1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: DocH
Feingold is a weasel at best on the 2nd Amendment. He talks pro, and voted to end the ugly gun ban.....while voting to ban .30-30 ammunition.

Apologies to weasels.

71 posted on 09/15/2005 9:16:52 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Draft Mark Sanford for President - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite

Finegold is hypocrite, and as you said, he CAN and WILL (emphasis mine) say anything and doesn't meal he'd vote that way. His big first time campaign spiel was "Nobody's Senator but yours" and he had the cute commercials with "no skeletons in his closet". Yet this sycophant ass-kissing water-carrying democRAT toady has always, always voted along party lines, never minding letters to the contrary written by his constituents (I being one who has written many letters). He is aligning himself as a potential for the oval orifice in 2008 as is the Evil One - the Hildebeast!

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


72 posted on 09/15/2005 9:25:44 PM PDT by giznort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: giznort

The only times he doesn't vote with his party are when he takes an even more radical position.

I believe he was the only Senator out of 100 to vote against declaring war on terrorism.

His cutesy ads wouldn't work on a national level. It's a crying shame that Tim Michels didn't beat him. I think any seasoned Republican politician with at least a modicum of reactive smarts would have defeated him last year. Michels let him get away with so many lies when Feingold was ripe for the picking. Trying to take his act national will be a joke, and a losing proposition, although he'd probably have his moments. The best I can hope for now is that he'd give up his Senate seat because Doyle is toast and Wisconsin will have a Republican governor by then.


73 posted on 09/15/2005 9:37:06 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite

I like your thinking....Hubby and I were Michels supporters and were very upset when he didn't get him. There are so many sheeples in Madison and Milwaukee that buy his b.s.

I haven't checked my home page for a while, but in case you didn't know, am from Sheboygan County, Wis. I have a few local issues concerning local zoning that I am trying to address before it becomes out of control. It sounds like you are from Wis too, so continue to fight the good fight. The biggest mistake that We the People make is to NOT get involved.

Must get to bed. Had long day. Have a good night.


74 posted on 09/15/2005 9:46:59 PM PDT by giznort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Pirogue Captain
I don't see the disagreement.

The Supreme Court didn't hold that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't a militia weapon; it merely stated that the government should be allowed to argue that claim in trial court (where Miller/Layton would be free to offer evidence to the contrary).

75 posted on 09/15/2005 9:50:46 PM PDT by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

The anti-Christian movement that liberals seem so anxious to strengthen, leaves them with a canundrum: How can they subscribe to the founding principle of these United States, namely: "that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."? Of course they can't, because they do not recognize a Creator. But, without a Creator, there can be no Creator-endowed unalienable Rights, so liberals must intrinsically reject the Declaration of Independence, and this country's most important founding principle.

Conservatives see the liberal movement as a direct attack on our freedom and our country's future, for it is indeed just that.

Thomas Jefferson states the conservatives' case: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."


76 posted on 09/15/2005 9:52:35 PM PDT by pelosi_is_a_dope (FROM THOUGHTS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

Every top-tier law school in the U.S. has published the "individual right position."


77 posted on 09/15/2005 9:56:34 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M1911A1
"I'm just wondering, are there a lot of judges on Robert's level who wouldn't have detailed knowledge of Miller, or are they all concentrated in the 9th circuit? :-)"

I don't think any of them have a lack of knowledge. It's their reference points and subsequently understanding that differs. Others don't care, because they hold a living Constitution. In that case only their particular ends matter and BS is gathered and formed to fit the con.

Bork saw the right as a community right, essentially the same as the 9th did. Bork claimed the founders tossed in the 2nd to prevent the feds from disarming the States. The commonality in proponents of this claim is that they are first and formost, authoritarians.

78 posted on 09/15/2005 9:58:44 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

Seems like Judge Roberts is passing my litmus tests (sorry, I have some):

1) First Amendment (Hate Speech Laws are Unconstitutional)

2) Second Amendment (It is an individual's ability to carry guns and other weapons)

3) Commerce Clause (Applicable only when there is true interstate *commercial* interest)

4) States' Rights (We are a Federal Republic for God's sake)
Abortion, Marriage, Public School Issues

Any thoughts? Others litmus tests?


79 posted on 09/15/2005 10:21:45 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Socratic
Certain people argue that the clause regarding a "well regulated militia" serves to restrict the individual's rights, but I argue that it strengthens the individual's rights because its intent is that all men should be proficient in the use of firearms in case their well-honed skills are ever needed by the government to preserve liberty for all.

I would take the argument even further. Not only does the 2A prevent infringement on our individual right to keep & bear arms, it also includes the right to form into militias to provide for our common defense.

80 posted on 09/15/2005 10:22:33 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pirogue Captain
And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.

They certainly were in use during WWI, in the trenches. It was directly after WWI that all the beeligerents, and many other countries as well, developed various versions of "the submachinegun", or "machine pistol", which provided the the benifits that a sawed-off shotgun provided in WWI, to wit, massive, man portable firepower, in a package that could be employed in close confines (like the trenches of WWI). In short, the sawed-off-shotgun was the original "room broom" (and still makes an acceptable substitute for a subgun today...)

the infowarrior

81 posted on 09/15/2005 10:30:43 PM PDT by infowarrior (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: eraser2005
And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....

Registration leads to confiscation. That just played out in New Orleans as registration records were used to identify households with firearms. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms and arrested people on their own private property. The only reason to "register" who owns a firearm is to ensure the government can locate and confiscate when they see fit.

82 posted on 09/15/2005 10:42:10 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

We definately need another Supreme Court Justice that will uphold the Bill of Rights. I hope Judge Roberts is such a man.


83 posted on 09/15/2005 11:54:38 PM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Feingold is a weasel at best on the 2nd Amendment.

Remember to, that he, and RINO McCain, created their unconstitutional campaign "reform" act (what a joke and a travesty), in part, to silence the NRA before elections.

He's no different than your typical demonRAT scumbag politician.

84 posted on 09/16/2005 5:29:50 AM PDT by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: epow; William Tell; quietolong; oyez

LOL! You all have excellent points. My remarks were SOMEwhat tongue in cheek but it really does get down to what is a person to do when confronted with illegal/oppresive acts by government officials, whether they be the police or NG?

And epow, I'm up there with you on the age so I know of what you speak.

Now, let's consider that our forefathers also tried every LEGAL means for fighting oppression but it didn't work. I believe that is what we will eventually be confronted with as well. After all lawful means (law suits, etc.) have been persued to no avail, then what? Your choice is to become "subjects" or fight as citizens, simple--but difficult. Remember: "You have a Republic, if you can keep it (paraphrased)".

Darn, I wish this wasn't going to be so hard...


85 posted on 09/16/2005 5:32:29 AM PDT by brushcop (We lift up our military serving in harm's way and pray for total victory and a safe return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Thanks for the link.

I particularly like the quote from Rep. Gratia-Hupp. I forwarded that quote, the story written by GOA's Eric Pratt, and the pro-gun cartoon and photo from the NO war zone, to many friends and family in my email mailbox.

I added info on Rep. Gratia-Hupp to the end of her quote...

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (the lady who had to sit by and watch as a madman crashed his truck through a Luby's Cafeteria window and methodically set about shooting as many people as possible, including her parents. She had a firearm for protection, but due to Texas law at the time, she left it in the car for compliance. She later became a legislator, lobbied for concealed carry in Texas, and it was passed and signed by the Republican Governor - George W. Bush .)

86 posted on 09/16/2005 5:34:58 AM PDT by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Bombardier
Everyone seems to think Roberts is OK, but for some reason I don't. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's the look in his eyes or something. When I was much younger, Rock Hudson was the idol of so many women, but I never liked him. Turned out I was right. I hope I'm not right about Roberts.

Carolyn

87 posted on 09/16/2005 5:37:33 AM PDT by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Feingold, like some other, mainly demonRAT politicians, walks-the-walk, but doesn't talk-the-talk.

President Bush has been somewhat of a disappointment regarding our 2nd Amendment rights, but overall, he has been much better an ally than most who have come before him.

I do wish he would speak out more forcefully on a number of issues, including our border and illegal immigration situation, and most especially, the illegal and unconstitutional gun confiscations that just occurred down in NO.

88 posted on 09/16/2005 5:39:59 AM PDT by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

It appears to me that the label may have been left off of Robert's reply. Note that the following paragraph contains a FEINGOLD: label.


89 posted on 09/16/2005 5:41:27 AM PDT by MortMan (Mostly Harmless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: XavierLarry

Welcome to FreeRepublic. You're statements are absolutely correct. Judge Roberts is one of the most impressive individuals I have seen, and I am of the opinion that he will be turning a lot of things around. But, he knows that he has to get there, first!


90 posted on 09/16/2005 5:46:29 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: epow

2nd Amendment does not explicitly state firearms. Just arms. Based on the logic of Miller I suppose swords are not considered generally to have utility militarily and therefore we should have no right to own/bear swords...right? Hands Up!


91 posted on 09/16/2005 6:01:44 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

ping for later.


92 posted on 09/16/2005 6:11:12 AM PDT by planekT (What a mess.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nov3

Yes.....and also spent time at the range.


93 posted on 09/16/2005 6:11:48 AM PDT by Bombardier ("Religion of Peace" my butt.....sell that snakeoil to someone who'll believe it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DocH

a look at feingold's rating by GOA and brady shows that he is on the side of gun owners 10% of the time and on the side of brady 75% of the time..
if he was truly a pro-gun, he would know that us v miller wasn't a collective/ individual right case.


94 posted on 09/16/2005 6:30:12 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
The fact that he correctly understands Miller, and rejected the anti-gun-rights distortion of the decision, is promising. Beyond that, he really can't go (as he correctly noted, this is an issue that is very ripe for the Court, given the discrepancy between the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circus).
95 posted on 09/16/2005 6:35:29 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pirogue Captain

wasn't there a prosecuter in that case that was a vet that would have seen them in use?


96 posted on 09/16/2005 6:36:20 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ursus arctos horribilis
There are more than a few libs who know the voters in their states or districts. For that reason alone, those pols consider the 2nd to be their third rail, they avoid it like the plague.

The Dem political strategists know that if it weren't for the gun issue, Al Gore would be in his second term. For this reason, they try to sit on the gun-grabber faction as hard as they can without actually offending them to the point where they stay home or vote Green.

97 posted on 09/16/2005 6:39:56 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad
Right now, even though there's a conflict between the circuits, there's no pending case SCOTUS can rule on. SCOTUS denied certiorari in Emerson and this dialog shows there's no indication that certiorari was filed for in the Ninth Circuit case. That means we'll have to wait for another case to work its way up through the circuits.

A slightly favorable thing about Roberts is that he did say the Miller court side stepped the individual vs. collective right issue. The gun grabbers have long been saying Miller stood for the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

98 posted on 09/16/2005 6:40:17 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
This is what I said, in error, in my previous post...

Feingold, like some other, mainly demonRAT politicians, walks-the-walk, but doesn't talk-the-talk.

Obviously, in a hurry to post, I got it backwards.

Doh!

99 posted on 09/16/2005 6:43:14 AM PDT by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bombardier

Thanks for calling. I haven't been to the range near enough.


100 posted on 09/16/2005 6:43:37 AM PDT by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-149 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.

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