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

Skip to comments.

SECOND AMENDMENT CALL TO ACTION: EMERSON CASE
Seniors United Supportinh the Second Amendment ^

Posted on 05/26/2002 8:17:19 AM PDT by SUSSA

Please help. The U.S. Supreme Court will more than likely hear the Emerson Second Amendment case (U.S. v. Emerson). This case has the potential to do for Second Amendment rights what Roe v Wade did for abortion, but we must act to make that happen.

Seniors United Supporting the Second Amendment is trying to raise enough money to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in this case. However we need your help.

We have made arrangements with an experienced, conservative, constitutional attorney to research and write the brief at very low cost. But we need to raise enough money for the printing and other costs. As you can guess, this is not a cheap undertaking and we are a small group.

I'm asking Freepers to contribute to this effort to save the Second Amendment. We need to raise another $2500.00 for this project. Once the Supremes announce that they will hear the case, we will have less than 90 days to write print and file the brief. That means that we have to have the money in the bank when the Court makes the announcement.

Contributions to SUSSA are tax deductible. SUSSA is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3), charitable, civil rights, organization. We are asking Freepers who support the Second Amendment to please help us in this project. Contributions can be sent to SUSSA, P.O. Box 29132, Dallas, TX 75229. Any help Freepers can give us will be greatly appreciated. This case may well be our best hope for restoring our Second Amendment rights.

PLEASE HELP!! www.sussa.org


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Free Republic
KEYWORDS: banglist; civilrights; secondamendment; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 05/26/2002 8:17:20 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sirgawain; SLB; GEC, gundog; harpseal; DWSUWF; Wild Game; Fiddlstix; Mercuria; basil; TexanaRED...
fyi
2 posted on 05/26/2002 8:19:11 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
please provide docket number for case...
3 posted on 05/26/2002 8:26:15 AM PDT by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: SUSSA;/\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; a contender; AABC; abenaki; Abortion SUCKS out a Life...
Link to docket if anyone is interested...
5 posted on 05/26/2002 8:32:44 AM PDT by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Thanks I should have thought to provide that link.
6 posted on 05/26/2002 8:34:48 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ex con
The Court made abortion a sacrament that can only be regulated in the smallest most restricted ways. I'd love to see guns as easy to get and carry as abortions are. You can get an abortion without even giving your name and with no government supervision.
7 posted on 05/26/2002 8:39:52 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
on an adminstrative note.. you should not use FR to solicit funds.. just provide the information about the case...

FReegards,

David

8 posted on 05/26/2002 8:43:27 AM PDT by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ;Mercuria;FreedomFriend,Sabertooth;lowbridge;NativeAmericanFemaleVet
Ping!
9 posted on 05/26/2002 8:44:51 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: ex con
I agree 100%. My only point was guns should the right to own and carry should have the protections the Court created for abortion. I'd be very happy with having guns as protected as abortion is.
11 posted on 05/26/2002 8:55:10 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
SUSSA is a friend to FR, and I don't think Jim has any problem with this appeal. If he did, he or one of his moderators would have made their displeasure known.
12 posted on 05/26/2002 9:01:52 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: ex con
:) Think how much that would piss off Chucky, Hillary and Sarah Brady! :)
14 posted on 05/26/2002 9:13:13 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
BTTT!!!!!!
15 posted on 05/26/2002 9:22:50 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bang_list
Bang
16 posted on 05/26/2002 9:23:20 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
I support the effort, but as one who has volunteered countless hours for 2nd amendment fights, couldn't they find some volunteer attorneys?
17 posted on 05/26/2002 9:25:20 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Much of the wqork is being done by volunteers. Some expenses are unavoidable like printing and research. The lead attorny is just getting expenses. Most briefs to the Supreme Court cost many tens of thousands of dollars.
18 posted on 05/26/2002 9:28:15 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
wqork = work

I can't type for crap today.

19 posted on 05/26/2002 9:29:23 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
BTTT to you and SAF.
Best of luck,JB.
20 posted on 05/26/2002 9:34:30 AM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN
Thanks!! This case is important. We will be doing all we can to see to it the court gets this one right.
21 posted on 05/26/2002 9:36:39 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: SUSSA
The problem is two-fold :

Gun ownership is protected by the Second Admendment ONLY if the people insist on it.,

and

I , for one, am DISGUSTED with your comparing my God-given , natural right to self-defense to the legalization of elective abortion, which is most surely not in harmony with protecting INNOCENT lives .

Don't count on a nickel from me.

23 posted on 05/26/2002 9:43:54 AM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex con
And Sarah's straw purchase of a gun for her son would be legal. :)
24 posted on 05/26/2002 9:47:24 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
fyi
25 posted on 05/26/2002 9:49:16 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
BTT
26 posted on 05/26/2002 9:51:13 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

Guns Save Lives !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!


27 posted on 05/26/2002 9:54:25 AM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blackie
Molon Labe!!!!!
28 posted on 05/26/2002 9:56:00 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA;madfly
Original Intenet BUMP!
29 posted on 05/26/2002 10:03:31 AM PDT by hammerdown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HAMMERDOWN
Great link! Thanks
30 posted on 05/26/2002 10:05:09 AM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne, SUSSA

31 posted on 05/26/2002 11:18:56 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
bttt
32 posted on 05/26/2002 11:57:18 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ex con
friggin 2cd Amendment

Should read sacred 2cd Amendment.

33 posted on 05/26/2002 12:02:54 PM PDT by S.O.S121.500
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ; HangFire; Lady Jenn; Kithlyara; AZ Spartacus; feinswinesuksass; abigail2...
Belles bump
34 posted on 05/26/2002 12:20:39 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
BangTTT &;-)


35 posted on 05/26/2002 12:30:15 PM PDT by 2Trievers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne;newwahoo
BTTT
36 posted on 05/26/2002 1:13:41 PM PDT by Yehuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
The Supreme court hearing of the Emerson case, and their subsequent ruling (FOR OR AGAINST the 2nd Amendment) will be instrumental in affecting future politics.

If they rule in favor of Emerson, that his 2nd Amendment rights are violated, this will set up a Supreme Court precendence that will allow most any of the thousands of federal gun laws to be challenged and also be "shot down". It will set a precedence for challenging all sorts of unconstitutional federal government.

If they rule against the 2nd Amendment, interpreting it as the gun grabbers do, that it really doesn't mean what it says, then patriotic, constitutional Americans will finally have to admit, once and for all, that our American form of government is surely lost, that OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REGOGNIZE OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and in my opinion, that this cultural divide will inevitably accelerate, expand, and lead to eventual Civil War II.

I think a Supreme Court ruling of this type is way overdue. It needs to happen so we can dispense with the cat-fighting over semantics with the gun grabbers and liberals, and start work on what is necessary to end this out of control socialist federal monster, whether it be through more Supreme court wins (my hope), or if necessary, by asserting our 2nd Amendment rights (I fear may come).

37 posted on 05/26/2002 1:21:51 PM PDT by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex con
Ex con you state,

"Roe vs Wade was a judicial raping of the Constitution."

You need to be careful with this type of statement. Let me explain why.

Justice Blackmun was correct when he wrote in the majority opinion that the 9th amendment contained the right to privacy and it was not to be denied or disparaged by any government.

Justice Blackmun was incorrect in his assumption that a fetus is part of a woman's body, similar to an arm or a kidney, in which a woman had exclusive ownership over and thus cannot exert the right to privacy over.

This is the incorrect assumption, when a fetus is life, in which Roe v Wade has be incorrectly decided, not the constitutionality of the right to privacy.

When in fact a fetus is a separate human being, a temporary inhabitant of woman's body, in which she cannot make on her own.

This fact is acknowledged by Justice Blackmun simply because he states that after the first trimester, abortions can be prohibited.

Just as you want the current Justice's to read the "figgin" Constitution, the way it was written for the second amendment, you should want the Justice's to read the 9th amendment in the same way.

The 9th amendment is a very important amendment because it is the protection we have from our government telling us to wear seat belts in autos; not to smoke in restaurants; not to drink alcohol in our autos; donate our organs to whomever and whenever; die when we want to; consume the chemicals of your choice; consume the food of our choice, etc, etc.

38 posted on 05/26/2002 5:01:10 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Seniors United Supportinh the Second Amendment

Supportinh?

Is that the Vietnamese spelling?

39 posted on 05/26/2002 5:33:07 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: SUSSA
bump
41 posted on 05/26/2002 6:24:09 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Thanks for the heads up!
42 posted on 05/26/2002 8:06:57 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
best bump!
43 posted on 05/26/2002 10:37:11 PM PDT by Soul Citizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: ex con
I am never sarcastic about rights.
46 posted on 05/27/2002 6:30:27 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: SUSSA
Please don't be offended, I'm just a country boy and I can't see why you could do what Emerson's defense team can't.
48 posted on 05/27/2002 8:00:14 PM PDT by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex con
The short answer is all forms of governments in the U.S. violate our rights, daily. But that does not mean we still do not have the rights.

The long answer is we have to exert our rights.

Don't wear a seat belt.

Smoke on public property. As to private property, you will have ask the owner for permission.

Drive an auto with a can of beer between your legs.

Another way to exert your rights, without "breaking laws," as an attorney advised me, is to seek an injunction against those who would enforce such laws.

That is my intention.

49 posted on 05/27/2002 9:35:50 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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