Posted on 05/08/2002 11:57:58 AM PDT by Patriotman
Thanks....so then a restraining order that does infringe upon the target's rights may be issued with due process of law?
Yes, though what constitutes "due process" may vary considerably by state, and by what rights are affected.
Not really. The Court could throw out the Lautenberg Act as being a violation of Article I.8 jurisdiction, just as they did the Gun Free School Zones Act, without needing to make any reference whatsoever to the Second Amendment.
To be sure, GCA'68 also has some jurisdictional problems though with some slight work and state coopration the felony gun ban could be implemented in such a way as to pass even strict Constitutional muster (making use of the "full faith and credit" clause and the convicted-criminal exception to the Thirteenth Amendment).
I'd like to add mine to that "Wish List" and get GW to counterman every E.O. that Herr Klinton signed to make an end-run around the United State's Congress. . .
Oh, well, one can hope. . .
You need to do your homework. You're listening to way too much liberal media spin.
What you "DON'T" hear.. is about all the robberies that are PREVENTED by Store Owners who HAVE guns.
What you need to look up..are the stats since it has become legal to CARRY in Texas and Oklahoma. There are things you MUST do in order to have that privledge.. but what you need to look up are the crime stats since the right to carry took effect!! I'll save you some time.. THEY WENT DOWN!!
I think background checks of some magnitude are good, in that we don't want criminals legally getting guns! But I also know that criminals will always get them somehow even if they were banned.
I might add.. it would be ill advised for a person with criminal intent to enter my home. We are both expert marksmen. I was taught to shoot by a former Seattle Sherrif years ago. I was taught to never aim to maim.. but to kill.
I would.
We stay proficient in firing our weapons.
We raised 5 children and have 12 grandchildren. There have always been guns in our home. They are loaded. The first chamber is always empty. We use common sense when dealing with the issue of safety..and our protection. We are absolutely positive that our kids NEVER touched our guns. We have ways of knowing this. We have prooved it.
Its called "being responsible".
Something a lot of parents lack..and usually the ones who fear guns the most! IMHO
The accidental shootings are actually statistically rare. And don't tell me that one is too many.. of course it is. But so is one child being hit by a car TOO MANY!!! One drowning too many!!!
Accidents do happen. We can't outlaw living!!!
Now abortions.. THATS MURDER!!!
What T/C did to force the issue was register a tax stamp for a short-barreled rifle, build one, and then sue the BATF for a refund of the tax. Since the BATF could not legally return the money without acknowledging that no tax was owed on such rifles, but could not keep it if it had no legitimate reason to do so, there was no way the government could let the issue drop before it reached the Supreme Court.
I would propose, if and when the makeup of the Court is favorable, the following procedure: (1) a group like GOA or JPFO registers a tax stamp for an M16 and purchases such a weapon in a state where legal. (2) The group sues the BATF, on the grounds that the M16, having been a standard rifle of both the U.S. infantry and the National Guard for many years, is clearly a weapon suitable for use in a well-functioning militia. (3) Nobody has to risk going to jail, and the government can't simply default on the case when it looks like it might lose.
Anyone like that strategy?
Then you should be very happy because he has done just that. He has rescinded or tabled every EO signed by Clinton that fits the legal description of "executive order".
Really ??
Would you, by any chance, have a link to that ?? ?? ??
I would LOVE to read through that one !! !!
But, I have a little problem about his signing something, to get around Congress, that needs congressional approval to be removed. . .
Sounds like a Zen Riddle to me. . .
Yes but the question was , why he has not countermanded Clinton EO's?" Or was I mistaken? Executive orders are constitutional. The reason they are is because they do not carry the force of law past a sitting presidents term of office unless allowed by future presidents
The "reasonably restrictions for unfit persons" refers of course to men being sued for divorce.
Of course THEY don't ever want it tested.
There is the danger that the supreme court might actually compare Olsen's contention to "shall not be infringed".
Sorry I missed your point. The "Antiquities act" specifically grants a sitting president the authority to declare "National Monuments". That is a congressional authorization. However;, congress retains the power to modify OR "veto" any "monument" it chooses.
However; the question WILL be raised because of this opinion and it WILL be decided in the USSC with the Solicitor General arguing it. No, tanks, grenades, bombs and missiles are not going to be sold in the neighborhood army surplus store, but if you can't recognize this as a sea change in government (administration) opinion there may be nothing that could sway you.
Then the reset button will be that much closer to being pressed.
Of course they COULD. The question is "What are they LIKELY to do?". Seems to me like a couple of them are just looking for a valid excuse to tee-off on the second amendment. This could easily serve as the tool they have been looking for.
To be sure, GCA'68 also has some jurisdictional problems though with some slight work and state coopration the felony gun ban could be implemented in such a way as to pass even strict Constitutional muster (making use of the "full faith and credit" clause and the convicted-criminal exception to the Thirteenth Amendment).
I'm not so sure of that,but it doesn't really matter at this time. First,they have to hear and make a pro-freedom ruling on a "nuts and bolts" case like this one,and then we'll see what happens down the road. I personally don't see ANY justification for keeping a "convicted criminal exception" alive,but who knows how the knees will jerk on a panel of judges? No other group of people are more pre-disposed to find such a thing valid.
Amen!
You are so right.
Too bad most Americans have been brainwashed into conformity by the gubbamint school system.
I'm afraid it's a lost cause.
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.