Posted on 07/13/2005 2:57:51 PM PDT by El Laton Caliente
I would not like to see him in the SCOTUS
I don't remember that, but it certainly explains why Ashcroft matters! Thanks.
Again? This particular surrender of power dates back to '68.
Another bureaucratic SNAFU. I wonder what life in the US would be like without the government telling you when to breath?
i'd rather see them put to use, i've always thought that the jack booted thugs with supressed sub/machineguns, artillery and spy planes would make good border patrol agents.
weren't there 2 big bans between reagan and ghwb? iirc 86 and 91.
The unelected bureaucrats are complicit, but Congress is the one that violated the law in the first place. Some as they violated the firat amend with their campaign finance reform.
Gonzales OKd this.
ok, so in us v miller 1939, scotus declared
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizens the right to keep and bear such weapons."
this sounds to me like they were saying, "well, we don't see that a short barrel shotgun has any military use. so we don't see GCA 1934 as unconstitutional" yet later ammendments and further bans SPECIFICALLY refer to millitary weapons (from other countries) as banned, not to mention US millitary weapons.
we don't need sporting, we need someone to get scotus to re-open us v miller 1939, so they can declare GCA 1934 and all of its ammendments unconstitutional
What the court should have asked is, "is a short barreled shotgun and 'arm'?" The answer being an obvious "yes", is therefore protected. Also, if the Miller decision establishes a test of suitability for "militia" use, then why are full auto firearms so heavily "infringed" upon?
the test itself was bunk. the prosecuting attourney had been in WWI, he surely saw millitary using SBSs.
but you ask the same question i do. if -14s, -16, -60, HKs, AKs, FALs, etc are used by millitaries around the world, how do they not have any "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"?
'86 was when the MG ban went into place hidden it 60,000 pages of a spending bill. This is an expansion of the '89 Executive Order that Bush 1 foisted upon us.
The first can be forgiven because it was passed by deception with probably only a dozen people knowing it was there. The second cannot. Bush 1 deliberately screwed us over.
Well, what other choice do we have? Should we all tell the GOP and the DNC to stuff it and go to the Constitution or Libertarian Party?
BTTT
Can we pressure be applied?
Can this be overruled by someone higher up? Can Bush weigh in through an intermediary to have this interpretation tossed out?
hidden in 60,000 pages? ouch. i knew it had been snuck in, but i didn't realize it was THAT hidden. now, if it was snuck in, why would it be let stand? or is it another case of no one having the guts to do anything about it?
There's only two ways that we are ever going to see a truly free and openly practiced 2nd amendment in the US and neither of them are peaceful, I'm sorry to say.
You are right about the above...a lot of talk on this forum and NO action. No one has the backbone.
You are beginning to think correctly.
LOL! You're probably right.
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.