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

Skip to comments.

The Court and the Second Amendment
New York Times ^ | 21 nov 07

Posted on 11/21/2007 5:09:14 AM PST by rellimpank

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court’s move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; heller; parker; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
--that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”--

I find this quote from the NYT editorial to be an astounding (and inadvertant, I am sure) admission that I can own an M-16--

1 posted on 11/21/2007 5:09:15 AM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of criminal Americans.

Didn't take much to fix that.

2 posted on 11/21/2007 5:14:05 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
The court has "inserted itself"? The issue is "reasonable gun control"?

I see proper application of the principle of Checks and Balances and I see the possibility that basic rights may be reclaimed.

3 posted on 11/21/2007 5:14:40 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
". . . the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns." But the stats show that violent crime goes down in states like Virginia that have concealed carry laws.
4 posted on 11/21/2007 5:14:47 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Or a short-barrel shotgun. Or a magazine of any size. Or a full auto pistol.


5 posted on 11/21/2007 5:17:58 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Thanks - sounds like they're already throwing in the towel.

As expected, the NYT sums up the baseless arguments for gun control perfectly.

6 posted on 11/21/2007 5:18:09 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

It sure is nice to see the New York Times shaking in their suspenders.

7 posted on 11/21/2007 5:18:41 AM PST by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans

Already they want the sheep to believe that the ruling could cause blood to run in the streets just like they did when concealed carry became popular.

8 posted on 11/21/2007 5:18:54 AM PST by mouser (run the rats out its the only hope we have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mouser
Blood might run in the streets of DC. It might be the blood of some drugged out, bling pimp.
9 posted on 11/21/2007 5:21:49 AM PST by bmwcyle (BOMB, BOMB, BOMB,.......BOMB, BOMB IRAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Most MSM saysa first Second Amendent gun case since Miller in 1939.

MSM wrong again.

Supreme Court Gun Cases
by Dave Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Alan Korwin

Sales info here
News Media Fact Sheet
General findings

Descriptive Index of Cases
All 92 Supreme Court gun cases are listed here alphabetically,
as answered questions, to help you find specific proceedings,
and quickly grasp the gun-related elements of the case.

Only the questions related to firearms or self defense are listed
even if, as is often the case, the decision itself has a different focal point.
Many other questions are indeed typically addressed in the cases and,
because of the terseness of the questions below, you should rely on
the full actual cases for an understanding of the significance of each one.
Think of this index as a navigation tool, a memory jogger, and a good read.

• Indicates the 44 cases presented in their entirety in Supreme Court Gun Cases.
Ð Indicates the 14 self-defense cases.

Key: Name; Date; Citation; Page in Supreme Court Gun Cases

Acers v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].

Adams v. Williams; 1972; 407 U.S. 143; 363
Can a peace officer conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons, if there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous [YES]; Are 4th Amendment guarantees violated by such a stop and frisk [NO].

Adamson v. California; 1947; 332 U.S. 46; 310
[The dissenting opinion in a 5th Amendment case argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, against the states].

Alberty v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].

Albright v. Oliver; 1994; 510 U.S. 266; 481
[The dissenting opinion in a case involving freedom from malicious prosecution cites the right to keep and bear arms as among fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution].

Allen v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 492; 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].

Allison v. United States • Ð; 1895; 160 U.S. 203; 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].

Andersen v. United States Ð; 1898; 170 U.S. 481; 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].

Bailey v. United States •; 1995; 516 U.S. 137; 542
Can the sentence for a drug offense be increased for using a gun, if the defendant possessed a gun at the time of the offense but did not actively employ it [NO]; Is the “inert presence of a firearm” sufficient to indicate “use” for the purpose of enhancing certain drug offenses [NO]; Does storing a gun with drugs or drug money constitute “use” for this purpose [NO]; Does hiding a gun where it can be grabbed and used if necessary constitute use [NO]; If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned is it used [NO].

Barrett v. United States •; 1976; 423 U.S. 212; 382
Is the Gun Control Act violated by a convicted felon acquiring a gun that has at some point moved in interstate commerce, even if the felon’s acquisition and possession occurred entirely within one state [YES].

Bass, United States v., •; 1971; 404 U.S. 336; 351
To convict a felon of illegal possession of a firearm, does the prosecution need to show, in addition to possession, that the firearm had a connection to interstate commerce [YES]; Does the same apply to receiving, and to transporting a firearm [YES]; Would showing that the firearm had at some time previously traveled in interstate commerce be a sufficient nexus [YES].

Bean, United States v., •; 2002; 01-704; 643
If BATF fails to act on a request for restoration of the right to bear arms, but does not actually deny the request, are there actionable grounds for judicial review to get those rights restored [NO].

Beard v. United States • Ð; 1895; 158 U.S. 550; 208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].

Beecham v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 368; 482
Does reinstatement of a federal felon’s civil right to keep and bear arms by a state court remove the federal disability against felons bearing arms [NO]; Does the fact that Congress currently provides no way for a felon to restore the right to keep and bear arms matter in this regard [NO].

Biswell, United States v.,; 1972; 406 U.S. 311; 361
Is the 4th Amendment violated when a federally licensed firearms dealer’s business is searched under 18 USC §923(g) without a warrant, and illegally possessed guns are seized [NO]; When a dealer “chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business” and to accept a federal license, does he do so with the knowledge that his business will be subject to effective inspection [YES].

Bousley v. United States; 1998; 523 U.S. 614; 599
Does a defendant need to understand what constitutes “use” of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in order to enter a constitutionally valid guilty plea [YES].

Brown v. United States • Ð; 1921; 256 U.S. 335; 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].

Brown v. Walker; 1896; 161 U.S. 591; 223
Is the object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice [YES]; Are the first eight amendments limitations only upon the powers of Congress and the Federal courts, and not applicable to the several States, except so far as the 14th Amendment may have made them applicable [YES].

Bryan v. United States •; 1998; 524 U.S. 184; 613
Are you committing the crime of “willfully” dealing in firearms without a license, if you know your actions are illegal but do not know the licensing law you are violating [YES]; Was the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act enacted to protect law-abiding citizens who might inadvertently violate the law [YES].

Burton v. Sills •; 1969; 394 U.S. 812; 344
[The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a 2nd Amendment suit against a discretionary firearm licensing law, citing cases that held the 2nd Amendment inapplicable to the states; the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question.]

Busic v. United States; 1980; 446 U.S. 398; 410
Can an assault sentence, increased under the armed-assault-of-a-federal-officer law, also be increased under the separate federal armed-felony law [NO].

Caron v. United States; 1998; 524 U.S. 308; 623
Can a three-time violent-felony loser avoid a five-year mandatory penalty enhancement for carrying a gun in a subsequent crime he commits, if a state court had partially restored his right to keep and bear arms [NO]; If a state restores a convicted felon’s right to keep and bear long guns but not handguns, is the federal ban for felons on possession on all guns removed [NO].

Castillo v. United States •; 2000; 530 U.S. 120; 629
Is the type of firearm used in a Gun Control Act violation an element of the offense that must be determined by a jury [YES]; Is the type of firearm used in a GCA violation a sentencing factor that may be determined by a judge [NO].

Cruikshank, United States v., •; 1875; 92 U.S. 542; 159
Does the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose depend on the Constitution for its existence [NO]; Does the 2nd Amendment have no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, and prevent Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms [YES].

Cummings v. Missouri; 1866; 71 U.S. 277; 158
Is deprivation or suspension of a person’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms, a form of punishment [YES].

Custis v. United States; 1994; 511 U.S. 485; 485
Can a defendant at a federal sentencing hearing (in this case under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984) attack the validity of prior state convictions that are used to enhance his sentence [NO].

Deal v. United States; 1993; 505 U.S. 129; 469
When a statute calls for quadrupling the prison sentence for subsequent crimes of violence involving use of a gun, can a defendant suffer the enhanced penalty if the subsequent and original charges are all proven during a single trial [YES].

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services; 1989; 489 U.S. 189; 441
Does the 14th Amendment guarantee that a state must protect its citizens from private violations of life, liberty or property [NO].

Dickerson v. New Banner Institute •; 1983; 460 U.S. 103; 411
If a state criminal conviction, which removes your ability to bear arms under federal law, is expunged at the state level, is your federal disability from bearing arms automatically removed [NO]; Is it constitutional to deny your right to arms after your conviction has been expunged [YES].

Dred Scott v. Sandford; 1856; 60 U.S. 393; 149
Do freed slaves have the rights of other American citizens, including the right to keep and bear arms [NO]; Can Congress deny to the people in federal Territories the right to keep and bear arms [NO].

Duncan v. Louisiana; 1968; 391 U.S. 145; 333
Is the right to keep and bear arms one of the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution [YES].

Ex Parte Milligan; 1866; 71 U.S. 2; 150
[The published legal arguments on both sides of this case, involving trial of a civilian by court martial, both make reference to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right belonging to the people, but a right not belonging to slaves or rebels; a man cannot violate the laws of war if he is not in the military or in the militia in actual service.]

Florida v. J. L.; 2000; 529 U.S. 266; 627
Is a vague and anonymous tip sufficient grounds to conduct a search of a person on the street alleged to be illegally carrying a gun [NO].

Freed, United States v., •; 1971; 401 U.S. 601; 345
Does the regulatory scheme of the amended National Firearms Act violate the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination, or violate a person’s right to due process of law [NO].

Galioto, United States v., •; 1986; 477 U.S. 556; 439
[Court dismisses as moot the constitutionality of allowing felons a means to restore their right to obtain firearms but not allowing the same for former mental patients, because Congress, while this case was in process, changed the law to allow any person with firearms disabilities to apply for relief.]

Gonzales, United States v.,; 1997; 520 U.S. 1; 552
May the federal five-year-sentence enhancement for using or carrying a gun during a drug trafficking crime run concurrently with a state sentence [NO].

Gourko v. United States • Ð; 1894; 153 U.S. 183; 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].

Griswold v. Connecticut; 1965; 381 U.S. 479; 322
Do the first eight amendments to the Constitution protect fundamental rights of the people [YES].

Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California; 1934; 293 U.S. 245; 294
Do the states have the authority to train their able-bodied male citizens of suitable age, to develop fitness to serve in the state militia [YES]; Is the state the sole judge of the means and amount of training as long as it doesn’t conflict with federal law [YES].

Harris v. United States; 2002; 00-10666; 634
Is brandishing a gun during a specified drug-trafficking crime a sentencing factor to be determined by a judge, and not an element of the crime to be determined by a jury [YES].

Haynes v. United States •; 1968; 390 U.S. 85; 326
Does Congress have the authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, subject to constitutional limitations, and to tax unlawful activities [YES]; Did the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act violate the defendant’s 5th Amendment privilege against self incrimination [YES]; Was a proper claim of 5th Amendment protection a complete defense against failure to register or possession of an unregistered NFA weapon [YES]. (Note that Congress redrafted the relevant statute to overcome these findings and continue to require NFA registration.)

Houston v. Moore; 1820; 18 U.S. 1; 147
[The first mention of the 2nd Amendment in a High Court decision occurs as a brief remark in a dissent in this case, postulating that the amendment would have little effect on the legitimacy of a state running and arming its militia in the absence of, or subordinate to Congressional regulation. It implies that the amendment was not primarily viewed as a guarantee of state government powers to control state militias.]

Huddleston v. United States •; 1974; 415 U.S. 814; 369
Is the return of a gun from a pawnbroker subject to the same requirements as the sale of a gun from a dealer under the Gun Control Act of 1968 [YES]; Is the intention of the GCA to deprive guns to unauthorized juveniles, fugitives, criminals and the mentally incompetent [YES]; Are hunting, target practice, gun collecting, and the legitimate use of guns for individual protection allowed under the GCA [YES]; Did Congress require commerce in firearms to be channeled through a federalized network of dealers in an effort to halt illegal mail-order and interstate consumer traffic in firearms [YES].

Johnson v. Eisentrager; 1950; 339 U.S. 763; 313
Does the Constitution confer to Nazi spies captured in China during WWII, subsequently convicted of spying on the U.S. and serving their sentences in post-war Germany, the rights it confers to U.S. citizens [NO]; Do the rights of U.S. citizens include among others the right to bear arms as in the 2nd Amendment [YES].

Kepner v. United States; 1904; 195 U.S. 100; 274
Did the adoption in the Philippines of most of the U.S. Bill of Rights omit the right to a trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms [YES].

Knapp v. Schweitzer; 1958; 357 U.S. 371; 314
Do all the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights apply to the states [NO].

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California; 1961; 366 U.S. 36; 315
Does absolute verbiage (“shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed”) in the 1st and 2nd Amendments allow for some level of regulation, some of which is well established and widely recognized [YES].

Laird v. Tatum; 1972; 408 U.S. 1; 368
Was the 2nd Amendment added to the Constitution to authorize a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms [YES].

Lewis v. United States •; 1980; 445 U.S. 55; 401
If a person is prohibited from possessing firearms due to a prior felony conviction, does it matter if the prior conviction was unconstitutional [NO].

Logan v. United States Ð; 1892; 144 U.S. 263; 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].

Lopez, United States v., •; 1995; 514 U.S. 549; 506
Does the Interstate Commerce Clause give Congress the power to regulate personal possession of firearms near local schools [NO]; Is possession of a gun in a school zone an economic activity [NO].

Malloy v. Hogan; 1964; 378 U.S. 1; 319
Is it unsettled as to whether the 14th Amendment applies the first eight amendments to the Bill of Rights against the states [YES]; Did Presser v. Illinois find that the particular guarantees of the 2nd Amendment were not safeguarded from state action [YES].

Maryland v. United States; 1965; 381 U.S. 41; 320
For the purpose of determining liability in an air crash involving a National Guard and commercial aircraft, are National Guard members state employees, and not federal employees, if not specifically called into federal service [YES]; Does it matter if the members were military or civilian members [NO].

Maxwell v. Dow; 1900; 176 U.S. 581; 269
Did the court decide in Presser v. Illinois that the 2nd Amendment is only a limitation on federal power [YES]. Would incorporation of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens against the states entirely destroy the sovereignty of the states [YES]. (Dissent suggests the Bill of Rights should apply to the states.)

Miller v. State of Texas •; 1894; 153 U.S. 535; 194
Will the Court accept a 2nd Amendment issue on appeal if it wasn’t raised in court prior to the appeal [NO].

Miller, United States v., •; 1939; 307 U.S. 174; 300
Without the presentation of evidence or testimony, can the Court determine whether a short-barreled shotgun, as defined in the 1934 NFA law, is a militia weapon and therefore an arm protected by the 2nd Amendment [NO]; Is possession of arms by the people related to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia [YES].

Miranda v. Arizona; 1966; 384 U.S. 436; 325
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, can there be any rule making or legislation that would abrogate them [NO].

Moore v. E. Cleveland; 1976; 431 U.S. 494; 390
Is the right to keep and bear arms among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights [YES].

Muscarello v. United States •; 1998; 524 U.S. 125; 600
With regard to a mandatory penalty increase for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, does “carry” include in the trunk of a car [YES]; Is a drug dealer with a gun in her pocket more dangerous than a drug dealer with a gun in her car trunk [NO].

One Assortment of 89 Firearms, United States v., •; 1984; 465 U.S. 354; 422
Does acquittal from criminal charges for dealing in firearms without a license prevent the government from conducting a separate civil forfeiture action and confiscating the firearms involved [NO]; Is such confiscation a violation of the protection against double jeopardy [NO]; Can the lower threshold of guilt (preponderance of the evidence) allow the government to prevail in the forfeiture, where it could not against the higher threshold (beyond a reasonable doubt) in criminal proceedings [YES]; Is the gun confiscation scheme in the law primarily a civil, non-criminal, remedial action [YES].

Patsone v. Pennsylvania •; 1914; 232 U.S. 138; 279
Can a state prohibit possession of rifles or shotguns for hunting by nonresident aliens without violating due process guarantees [YES]; Does such a prohibition violate specified treaty conditions with Italy [NO].

Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott; 1998; 524 U.S. 357; 626
Are firearms seized in a warrantless search of a paroled felon’s residence admissible as evidence at a parole revocation hearing, even if the seizure violated the 4th Amendment [YES].

Perpich v. Department of Defense •; 1990; 496 U.S. 334; 446
Can members of a state’s organized militia be called into federal service, for training outside the United States, without an imminent emergency and without the state Governor’s permission [YES]; When members of the state National Guard are federalized, are they still members of their state militia [NO]; When they muster out of federal service do they regain their state status [YES].

Planned Parenthood v. Casey; 1992; 505 U.S. 833; 468
Do the protections of the 14th Amendment extend beyond the specifics in the Bill of Rights—such as free speech, press, religion, the right to keep and bear arms and more—and to a freedom from all arbitrary impositions [YES]; Is the right to keep and bear arms among the type of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights [YES].

Poe v. Ullman; 1961; 367 U.S. 497; 317
(Justices Douglas and Harlan filed dissenting opinions, asserting that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, a position that was later adopted into law.)

Powell, United States v., •; 1975; 423 U.S. 87; 378
Is a 22-inch-long sawed-off shotgun capable of being concealed on the person and hence illegal to ship through the U.S. Post Office [YES].

Presser v. Illinois •; 1886; 116 U.S. 252; 172
Are all citizens capable of bearing arms the reserve military force in the country [YES]; Can the states deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms, thus depriving the United States of calling forth the militia [NO]; Can states regulate firearms as required for public order [YES].

Printz/Mack v. United States •; 1997; 521 U.S. 898; 556
Does the 10th Amendment prohibit the federal government from commanding local police authorities to implement federal police mandates, and conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers (the Brady case) [YES].

Robertson v. Baldwin; 1897; 165 U.S. 275; 254
Does the Bill of Rights protect “guarantees and immunities” which existed long before the Constitution was adopted [YES]; Are there well-recognized limits on these rights [YES]; Can a state prohibit concealed carry without violating the 2nd Amendment [YES].

Roe v. Wade; 1973; 410 U.S. 113; 369
Is the full scope of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment more than a series of isolated points that includes the right to keep and bear arms [YES].

Rogers v. United States •; 1998; 522 U.S. 252; 594
[A writ to consider “knowing possession” of an NFA “firearm” (a silencer in this case) is dismissed because the case fails to present the issue sufficiently clearly to merit review.]

Rowe v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 546; 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].

Scarborough v. United States •; 1977; 431 U.S. 563; 391
With regard to illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, which is federally banned for guns in or affecting commerce, does it matter when the gun moved in commerce, or when the felon was convicted, as long as both conditions occurred [NO].

Schwimmer, United States v., •; 1929; 279 U.S. 644; 289
If a person is unwilling to take up arms in military service if called upon, should application for naturalized U.S. citizenship be accepted [NO]; Is a fundamental principle of our Constitution that it is the duty of citizens, by force of arms, to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises [YES].

Simpson v. United States; 1978; 435 U.S. 6; 399
Can a bank-robbery sentence, increased under the federal armed-bank-robbery law, also be increased under the separate federal armed-felony law [NO].

Smith v. United States •; 1993; 508 U.S. 223; 470
For the purpose of enhancing the sentence in a drug-trafficking crime to a mandatory 30 years, does the phrase “using a gun,” in connection with drug trafficking, include offering to barter a MAC-10 with a silencer for two ounces of cocaine [YES].

Sonzinsky v. United States •; 1937; 300 U. S. 506; 296
Is a firearm, as defined in the 1934 NFA law, and a firearm dealer, federally taxable [YES].

Spencer v. Kemna; 1998; 523 U.S. 1; 598
[A dissenting opinion says a felon endures tangible harm after his sentence expires because he loses his right to vote or to bear arms, and is at risk for greater penalty in a future offense.].

Staples v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 600; 486
If a person is not aware that a firearm he possesses has been modified to fire as a machinegun, is he guilty of violating the ban on possessing an unregistered NFA weapon [NO].

Starr v. United States Ð; 1894; 153 U.S. 614; 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].

Stearns v. Wood •; 1915; 236 U.S. 75; 283
Does the Court have to interpret the 2nd Amendment or militia aspects of the Constitution for a National Guard officer who has insufficient legal standing to bring a case [NO].

Stinson v. United States; 1993; 508 U.S. 36; 480
Is the commentary to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, stating that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not a crime of violence, binding on the federal courts [YES].

Tennessee v. Garner Ð; 1985; 471 U.S. 1; 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].

Terry v. Ohio; 1968; 392 U.S. 1; 334
Is a limited, protective, non-invasive “pat-down” search for weapons, known as a “stop and frisk,” a reasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment if an officer observes suspicious behavior and believes it’s necessary for the safety of the officer or others nearby [YES]; Is the higher standard of probable cause needed to conduct such a search for weapons [NO]; Is a more complete search reasonable under these conditions [NO]; Is such a stop and frisk a severe but allowable intrusion upon cherished personal security [YES].

Thompson v. United States Ð; 1894 ; 155 U.S. 271; 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].

Thompson/Center Arms Co., U.S. v., •; 1992; 504 U.S. 505; 458
Is the definition of “making” an NFA firearm sufficiently clear to require registration and payment of the $200 NFA tax on a parts kit that can be assembled into a legal carbine or into a must-be-registered-to-be-legal short-barreled rifle [NO]; Is a carbine together with all the parts needed to convert it to a machinegun a machinegun [YES]; Is an unassembled silencer a silencer [YES]; Is an unassembled machinegun a machinegun [YES]; Is a pistol and attachable shoulder stock found in different drawers of the same dresser a short-barreled rifle [YES].

Tot v. United States •; 1943; 319 U.S. 463; 306
Does possession of a pistol by a person who has a prior felony conviction constitute proof that the person acquired the gun in interstate commerce, or acquired it after the date of the act that would outlaw such possession [NO].

Trono v. United States; 1905; 199 U.S. 521; 276
Is the right of the people to bear arms omitted in the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, concerning people in the Philippines [YES].

Twining v. New Jersey •; 1908; 211 U.S. 78; 277
Are the right of trial by jury, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, among the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the States [NO].

United States v. (various names)
Cases beginning with “United States” are listed alphabetically by the named party, q.v., Bass, Bean, Biswell, Cruikshank, Freed, Galioto, Gonzales, Lopez, Miller, One Assortment of 89 Firearms, Powell, Schwimmer, Thompson/Center Firearms Co., Ursery, Verdugo-Urquidez.

Ursery, United States v.,; 1996; 518 U.S. 267; 549
Was the confiscation of guns in the U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms case remedial, and not criminal in nature, and thus not prohibited under double jeopardy protections [YES].

Verdugo-Urquidez, United States v.,; 1990; 494 U.S. 259; 444
Does the phrase “the people” used in the 2nd Amendment refer to individual members of the American society, the same as it does in the Constitution’s preamble, and its 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments [YES]; Does the 2nd Amendment protect “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” [YES].

Wallace v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 466; 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].

Sales info here
News Media Fact Sheet
General findings

Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog

Encourage politicians to pass more laws...
with expiration dates.


10 posted on 11/21/2007 5:24:43 AM PST by CHICAGOFARMER ( “If you're not ready to die for it, put the word ''freedom'' out of your vocabulary.” – Malcolm X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Without the second amendment there would be no first amendment.


11 posted on 11/21/2007 5:26:45 AM PST by BubbaBasher (WWW.TWFRED08.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns.

I'm sorry, NYT, but any decision that doesn't deny broad room to regulate guns isn't going to be respectful of the Constitution's text. "Shall not be infringed" does not have a broad range of interpretations.

12 posted on 11/21/2007 5:28:14 AM PST by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Love it. Right from the get-go, they twist the argument away from the actual basis of “individual liberty” into a question of “public safety”.

Of course they have their precious “first amendment” by which they can propagate any kind of lies, distortions, and omissions they want.

Wonder what they’d be saying if government agents were at their door pointing guns at them and smashing their printing presses? Bet they’d sing a dam different tune then!


13 posted on 11/21/2007 5:35:22 AM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I think your right, read how the question was framed for the SCOTUS to answer, and make note of the fact that the SCOTUS actually authored the question to be answered, normally, the question comes from one or more of the parties involved. The question they are planning to answer is:

“Whether the following provisions [three sections of the D.C. gun law] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The question is asking whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia. If it doesn’t then the DC Attorneys have no standing to argue issues related to the Constitution.

Due to the fact that this case revolves around a non-state, I very much doubt that this is the case that the SCOTUS will use to clear up the 2nd.


14 posted on 11/21/2007 5:36:22 AM PST by SirFishalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirFishalot
Due to the fact that this case revolves around a non-state, I very much doubt that this is the case that the SCOTUS will use to clear up the 2nd.

Correct. It will be a narrowly defined judgement against the DC law, but will not change any of exisiting laws made regarding the 'several states'.

It possibly will have an impact on places like Morton Grove where similar law has been enacted or other jurisdictions that are restrictive.

15 posted on 11/21/2007 5:41:47 AM PST by Pistolshot (Never argue with stupid people, they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SirFishalot
The question is asking whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia.

I'll tell you what -- if I were a DC politician and the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to people living in a non-state, I would immediately propose the following:

All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.
All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.
Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.

I cannot believe that the Court will open up that can of worms.

16 posted on 11/21/2007 5:43:20 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: shekkian
the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns.

The NYT is equating an outright ban on gun ownership with "regulation". They two are not the same.

17 posted on 11/21/2007 5:45:51 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
From the article:

To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

The New York Slimes is the expert on creative editing. Once again they show that they haven't got a clue as to what they're talking about.

18 posted on 11/21/2007 5:46:09 AM PST by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
Without the second amendment there would be no first amendment.

Exactly! I firmly believe that, as a citizen of the United States of America, I have a right to self protection. Just because the elected officials at the Federal, state and local level hire public security forces does not mean that I give up my right to protect myself and my property.

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS comes down on this one. If they decide that you and I don't have the right to own firearms, I suspect there will be outrage unlike any that has ever been seen within these borders......

19 posted on 11/21/2007 5:56:29 AM PST by Thermalseeker (Thinking of voting Democrat? Wake up and smell the Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
Watch the MSM publicize every related gun crime etc etc from now until the decision in order to influence the Supremes

They are subject to propaganda and pressure just like any other individual
20 posted on 11/21/2007 6:01:35 AM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

As usual, the NYT has the story wrong, following their long standing editorial policy not to let hard facts get in the way of their editorial bias. The wording of the Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago.

The Framers of the Constitution knew very well what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment and wrote it the way they intended. It is only the idiot liberals who fail to connect the dots and understand that if all of the law-abiding people were to give up private ownership of their guns, we would all be at the mercy of the government and the criminals (no difference between them).

21 posted on 11/21/2007 6:06:28 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

In addition the court could rule it is an individual right protected to insure the states could have militias but since the states no longer have militias it is obsolete

Unfortunately as one justice in the past stated “The Constitution is what we say it is “

Look for a ruling as convoluted and dangerous as Roe Vs Wade on this one

I ain’t optimistic


22 posted on 11/21/2007 6:07:32 AM PST by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
A must read!

Grammatical Analysis of 2nd amendment, 1991

Excerpt:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

23 posted on 11/21/2007 6:20:01 AM PST by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns.

And just what part of "Right of The People" and "shall not be infringed" confers or fails to limit the "broad room" of the government to "regulate guns".

Of course they don't really want to regulate guns, in the sense that word was historically used with respect to guns, or timepieces for that matter, but rather to infringe upon the right of the people to keep (have, possesses, own) and bear(carry and use) arms". Now that is a definite no-no, and makes them some of those domestic enemies I seem to remember taking an oath to defend the Constitution against ... several times in fact.

24 posted on 11/21/2007 6:21:41 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
The NYT is equating an outright ban on gun ownership with “regulation”. They two are not the same.

To the New York Times they are one and the same.
25 posted on 11/21/2007 6:22:02 AM PST by Cheburashka (DUmmieland = Opus Dopium. In all senses of the word dope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shekkian

those sentences show that they are really afraid theyre gonna lose on this thing.

It should give us all hope.


26 posted on 11/21/2007 6:22:13 AM PST by Armedanddangerous (Chuin, Master of Sinanju (emeritus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mouser
Already they want the sheep to believe that the ruling could cause blood to run in the streets

If the ruling goes the way the NYT wants it to, it could, as that could mean the time to press the reset button had arrived.

27 posted on 11/21/2007 6:23:30 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Well, that makes it pretty clear than only state schools have the right to own books. < /lib mode>

28 posted on 11/21/2007 6:27:38 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

LOL!


29 posted on 11/21/2007 6:30:02 AM PST by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

—good one—I had lost that article in a computer change—thanks—


30 posted on 11/21/2007 6:31:01 AM PST by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
It will be a narrowly defined judgement against the DC law, but will not change any of exisiting laws made regarding the 'several states'.

Ah but you see they can't even rule on whether the DC code violates second amendment rights, until they define who has such rights, and to some degree what they are. That alone would be a huge step, in whichever direction they take.

31 posted on 11/21/2007 6:32:26 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

I think that article/analysis provides the single best refutation to the claim that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the militia.


32 posted on 11/21/2007 6:37:39 AM PST by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
................ ................ Look at this image, and listen to this music ................ ................. http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~taierip/imperial_march.mp3
33 posted on 11/21/2007 6:50:14 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~taierip/imperial_march.mp3

Why does the text never return when I put an image in? It buggers up the link.


34 posted on 11/21/2007 6:51:37 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite
****Why does the text never return when I put an image in? It buggers up the link.****

You're not formatting the HTML code properly for what you're trying to do.

35 posted on 11/21/2007 7:15:36 AM PST by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

Exactly.

To this line...

“A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.”

...I say - PROVE IT.


36 posted on 11/21/2007 7:26:01 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shekkian

Did you READ that quote?

The NYT is saying that being “respectful of the Constitution’s text” is something that they oppose!

Quite an admission, though we already knew this about the left...


37 posted on 11/21/2007 7:28:42 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand; SLB; Squantos; CoonDogPhilosophy; RonPaulLives; verity

Bttttttttt

Can’t wait to hear the outcome of this


38 posted on 11/21/2007 7:29:28 AM PST by CourtneyLeigh (Why can't all of America be Commonwealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunterite
Use this just after the img src= thingy (take out the empty spaces...)
< br > for a line break or wrap.
< p > for a break with an empty space between...
39 posted on 11/21/2007 7:29:54 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
I want that on a bumper sticker.
40 posted on 11/21/2007 7:30:55 AM PST by samtheman (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to somebody living in a non-state, District of Columbia”

The Supreme Court has already set its precedent under Grand Wizard Hugo Blackmun that the doctrine of “incorporation” means that the restrictions of the bill of rights applies not just to Congress but to the states.

I don’t care if DC is a non-state. Live by “incorporation”... etc.

Of course, my mistake here is to apply logical consistency to a leftist ideology and mindset. You have to think backwards when trying to figure out a leftist. Goal first - consistency of process be damned.


41 posted on 11/21/2007 7:31:57 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

What is so “reasonable” about victim disarmament laws?


42 posted on 11/21/2007 7:32:00 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Don’t make the mistake of trying to apply logical consistency to leftist “thinking”.


43 posted on 11/21/2007 7:33:10 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
I want to keep this link to the grammatical analysis where I can find it. Thanks.
44 posted on 11/21/2007 7:33:32 AM PST by samtheman (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher

So true


45 posted on 11/21/2007 7:37:40 AM PST by CourtneyLeigh (Why can't all of America be Commonwealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TLI

thanks


46 posted on 11/21/2007 7:40:19 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

if the gun grabbers win they can come get my guns and the guns of 80 million other Americans-if only 10% resist there will be a blood bath to rival the Civil War-this is the one issue i cannot compromise on ever-the best idea is to identify who is pushing disarmament and remember them well if things go south for firearms owners


47 posted on 11/21/2007 7:50:19 AM PST by steamroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I'll tell you what -- if I were a DC politician and the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to people living in a non-state, I would immediately propose the following:

All newspaper content within the District of Columbia must be reviewed by the new Censorship Board.

All places of worship in DC must close immediately, with the exception of the Episcopalian Churches.

Police will be searching homes whenever they feel like it, and removing guns, and also inappropriate reading material.

I am certain that this very argument will be brought up by the attorneys arguing our side of this case. If the 2nd doeesn't apply in DC because it isn't a state, then neither do any of the other rights enshrined in and protected by the rest of the BOR.

IMHO, we will win this case - the USSC will state that the 2nd protects an individual right. No, this case isn't about incorporation, so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't specify the limits of "reasonable regulation" (which I am sure will be part of the ruling), so we'll have to go through another case to have a ruling on that. No, it won't rule on the Constitutionality of the '86 full auto ban - though it'll give us the ideal tool to get it overturned in yet another case.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I can't see how they can rule the 2nd a "collective right" (whatever the eff such an animal may be), because to do so would make the rest of the rights mentioned in the BOR just as moot, based on the same reasoning. Even uber-lib Alan Dershowitz realizes this, and he's said that the Court needs to affirm that the 2nd protects an individual right so that the rest of the BOR means something.

48 posted on 11/21/2007 8:48:12 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: djf

All men have a right to defend themselves. That has ALWAYS been the case. The point of militias is that at times, the government will have to help any/all ordinary men.


49 posted on 11/21/2007 9:01:35 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
I think we have one of the best and learned courts in History. They won't make a mistake.

Although I think they did on eminent domain...but every state can take care of that if the people open their mouths.

50 posted on 11/21/2007 9:04:12 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 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