Jody, why won't the gun lobby ever take their cause to the Supreme Court?

[wyldwolf]

?

[hijinks]

1. They try

but the supremes only take 0.0001% of cases.

There are two big attempts right now to get to the USSC. One over the DC gun ban, one over the CA semi-auto ban.

EDIT, actually there are lots of RKBA people who don't think its a good idea right now. They think that the current court would rule against them. I think this argument is silly. If someone's civil rights are being infringed they should not have to wait for the politically correct time to restore them.

[DonP]

2. SCOTUS chooses very carefully

No one has been avoiding putting one there. It's just their choices that have kept it out so far.

There have been numerous attempts over the years to get a 2A case before them, by both pro and anti 2nd groups, but the last case they heard was Miller (?) in the 1930's, I believe.

They have passed on accepting some pretty good cases (at least they seemed that way to me). Their argument is that it must have a clear constitutional issue at hand that may not have been resolved properly by a lower court.

Sooner or later they will accept another case, but even then I don't expect any clear or concise resolution of the individual versus collective right argument.

Don P.

[wyldwolf]

3. If gun control laws are such an obvious violation of the 2nd Amendment...

...you would think the Supreme Court would take more cases... right?
As you say, Their argument is that it must have a clear constitutional issue at hand that may not have been resolved properly by a lower court.

You would think they would be challenged on constitutional grounds.

The Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. Most legal scholars consider the issue "settled law."

[Spoonman]

4. Please show us the proof

"The Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to states' militia's rights to bear arms"

We would love to see where you got your information.

[wyldwolf]

9. Findlaw.com is a great place to start!

The Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois (1886) that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. With this decision, the Supreme Court effectively left it to the states to regulate firearms at will.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=116&invol=252

In 1939, the Supreme Court set a precident on how much the Federal Government can limit an individual's right to own a firearm:

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''

Therefore, ''in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

As you can see, the Supreme Court would not strike down a law, on the basis of the Second Amendment, prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The court rejected the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," and the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.

Essentially, the court made the decision on what was proper or "ordinary military equipment."

In United States v. Warin, the court held that "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

Though not an actual court case, in 1972 Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment....There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."

[slackmaster]

24. Note the use of the phrase "we cannot say"

The Court did not say the 2A does NOT guarantee an indivudual the RKB a short-barrelled shotgun, rather they said they didn't know because nobody had presented any evidence whether OR NOT such a weapon could be considered ordinary military equipment.

The Miller decision contains only one unequivocal statement by the court: The taxing and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act are Constitutional.

[wyldwolf]

32. Some of the worst spin I've ever seen on this issue..

..or a serious lack of understanding of the English language.

we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This means saying so would be false

Just like, I cannot say that the earth if flat because doing so would be false.

[Superfly]

35. You must have a doctorate in logic!!

I cannot say the earth's core is metal, because I have not seen it.

Have you ever stopped to consider that they said "we cannot say" because they have no evidence to support any assertions along those lines?

Probably not.

[wyldwolf]

45. Spin, wiggle, spin, wiggle...

...are you saying you only know what you see?

I CAN say the earth's core is metal if that is what science says it is. I don't need to see it myself.

But I forgot, logic and science gets in the way of rightwing ideology. Sorry to have confused you.

[slackmaster]

48. Improper analogy

You have seen evidence that Earth's core is made of metal.

The SC had not been presented with evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun was or WAS NOT a standard piece of military equipment.

[wyldwolf]

51. That doesn't matter!

The SC is the sole authority on constitutional issues.

Perhaps you should show them evidence to the contrary so they'll change the stated position on the sawed off shotgun. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

53. Yes it does matter

Perhaps you should show them evidence to the contrary so they'll change the stated position on the sawed off shotgun. :eyes:

The opportunity for that to happen was lost when the SC remanded the case back to the appeals court and nobody showed up to represent Jack Miller.

[wyldwolf]

56. Too bad for the gun lobby!

You lost. Again.

[slackmaster]

65. Cut the personal crap

I am not the gun lobby.

I am slackmaster.

Your job is to entertain me, not to spew lame attempts at guilt by association.

[wyldwolf]

67. Yes, you are master of slack...

...as your replies show.

[slackmaster]

73. Thank you

You have just paid me the highest compliment any member of the Church of the SubGenius can receive, whether or not you intended it to be so.

[wyldwolf]

74. VERY sub genius!

[slackmaster]

76. I'm also a Time Control Master

[DoNotRefill]

31. Presser...

was made before the existence of the Incorporation doctrine. Miller said that the WEAPON had to have military use, NOT that the person with the gun had to be in a State Militia to have Second Amendment protection. And they did NOT say that a sawed off shotgun wasn't military equipment, they said that there was nothing in the record showing that it was, because Miller's side wasn't there. And the Supreme Court did NOT EVEN HEAR WARIN, THEY DENIED CERT.

[wyldwolf]

37. Sorry, the case was heard In 1886...

...and the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia.

Argue your case with the legal minds who have written on the topic.

You go to a Supreme Court justice and tell them what you just said: And they did NOT say that a sawed off shotgun wasn't military equipment, they said that there was nothing in the record showing that it was

You'll be laughed at.

[DoNotRefill]

50. What part of "absent a showing"...

and "it is certainly not within judicial notice" don't you understand?

Have you ever even HEARD of the Incorporation Doctrine? That's what put an end to STATES being able to ban religions and prohibit Free Speech. After the Incorporation Doctrine came into existence, Incorporated Rights that had been Federal got spread to the States. That's why States can, for example, no longer beat confessions out of people.

And I am a published author on this issue. True, it wasn't peer reviewed, but hey...it was published. It was an article on the striking similarities between "Jim Crow" laws and the NFA in a small University publication geared exclusively towards legal professionals.

[wyldwolf]

54. So, essentuially, the Incorporation Doctrine made all decisions before..

...null and void. Right?

[DoNotRefill]

60. Not all decisions....

just decisions upholding state restrictions of fundamental rights protected in the Bill of Rights. Marbury is still good law.

[wyldwolf]

63. And what does Marbury do?

makes the Supreme Court the sole authority on constitutional matters.

Give me a link stating that this doctrine makes pre-20th century decisions null and void.

[DoNotRefill]

90. Try a constitutional law class....

it might help.

[wyldwolf]

96. In other words, you don't know and are just repeating what you've heard..

[DoNotRefill]

97. duplicate post...

sorry 'bout that...

[DoNotRefill]

98. Nope....

it's just that I don't have 6 weeks to teach you the basics.

[wyldwolf]

101. OK, so you make these grand statements but say if I want proof...

...I need to take a class.

Cop out.

[Spoonman]

33. Thank you for demonstrating

The false nature of your statement.

"The Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. Most legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." "

The Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois (1886) that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. With this decision, the Supreme Court effectively left it to the states to regulate firearms at will.

Now care to guess how many state costitutions specifically state the individual "right to bear arms"?

Jody help me out with this one.

United States v. Miller (1939)
Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. <http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17> )

Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, , Georgia Law Review <1996>.)

If you would like to use your definition of US v. Miller, then the AWB is totally unconstitutional, seeing as assult weapons are perfect for military use.

[wyldwolf]

58. See post 9

...I won't keep reposting it.

[slackmaster]

52. Here are some other cases to ponder

Saying the whole issue was settled in the Miller and Warin cases is an oversimplification.

http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm

[happyslug]

108. To understand Miller you MUST understand HOW it went to the USSCT.

Miller was a hood who was caught with a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches. Prior to Trial Miller made a motion to dismissal on the grounds that even if the Government PROVED every fact of its case the Government would still lose for the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment.

The Judge ruled on the Motion and dismissed the Complaint against Miller (Who was subsequently killed in an unrelated shootout) on the grounds the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. From that dismissal the Federal Government appealed. Since the underlying case was dismissed on Motion prior to trial, the Supreme Court, on review, had to follow the same rule as the Trial Judge i.e. ALL FACTS HAD TO BE ASSUMED TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT (i.e. if the case had gone to Trial the Jury ruled have ruled in favor of the Government regarding ALL the facts of the case).

The Court in Miller said the Trial Judge had erred, not on the Second Amendment, but on the fact that there were no factual issues. The Court ruled that the issue of whether a WEAPON WAS A MILITIA WEAPON is a question of fact that had to be decided by a Jury. Simply put, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a question of fact not law if a weapon was a "Militia" weapon, since all questions of fact are reserved to a Jury, the case was remanded back to the Trial Judge for a Trial where a Jury could determine the "Fact" of whether the weapon in question was a "militia" weapon or not (No such trial ever took place for Miller was gunned down even before the case was heard by the US Supreme Court). If the Jury decided the weapon was a Militia Weapon, than and only than could the Trial Court ruled on the Legal Issue of whether the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment.

The Court did go on to say that if the JURY would find the weapon was NOT a militia weapon than its ban under the National Firearms Act was NOT a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that the Second only applies to Militia usable weapon and what is a militia Usable weapon is a question of fact reserved to the Jury.

Thus the Court avoided the whole issue of the Second Amendment and the National Firearms Act. Several Circuit courts have expanded Miller beyond what Miller says (I live in the Third Circuit which was one of the first to do so) but these interpretations of Miller go way beyond what the Court held in Miller.

I address Miller so people understand WHAT the court is saying. The opinion is BASED on assuming that the Government could PROVE all of its facts including that the weapon was NOT a militia usable weapon. The Court did go on and ruled that if the Government proved its case at trial the Second Amendment would not apply (i.e. the Second does NOT apply to non militia usable weapons). The court also ruled that if the Jury would rule the Weapon in questions was a Militia usable weapon than and only than could the Trial Court ruled on that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. The Court reserved its ruling on the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act until a Jury had made its findings of fact in the underlying case.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. After 2000, YOU trust the court

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[jody]

7. Once SCOTUS rules on the 2nd, then all groups that owe their existence

to the RKBA controversy and politicians that campaign on the RKBA issue go out of business. That's true for both sides.

When that happens, we Democrats can focus on the top priority issues and return control of the government to "We the People". :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

20. that's a LIE.

"The Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals."

Please cite a SINGLE Supreme Court decision made during the 20th Century that said anything REMOTELY like that.

[wyldwolf]

46. Why does it have to confined to the 20th century?

Marbury v. Madison showed that the Court is the final authority on constitutional issues.

Whether is was 1876 or 1939 or 1972, their decisions stand.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Ummm...because....

during the 20th Century, there were huge leaps made in legal doctrine which makes Presser irrelevant. There's ZERO chance that if Presser was heard today that the decision would be anything resembling what was said then.

It's kind of like education...For a long time, "separate but equal" was deemed to be legally acceptable. Now, we see that as a complete and total fraud.

[wyldwolf]

59. YOU have decided this?

So all cases pre-20th century are irrelevant?

Bwahahahahahaha!

[DoNotRefill]

68. That's not what I said.

The Incorporation Doctrine invalidates all state laws (and prior caselaw) denying fundamental liberties enumerated federally in the BoR.

It DOES NOT invalidate caselaw that deals with other issues.

[wyldwolf]

72. Did you not say...

"during the 20th Century, there were huge leaps made in legal doctrine which makes Presser irrelevant."

Where did this arrive from if not your imagination?

[DoNotRefill]

81. Ummmm...

from the decision to actually APPLY the 14th Amendment???

[wyldwolf]

88. The 14th Amentment was ratified in 1868...

...making the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser vs. Illinois part of the new legal mindset? Or did they say, "we'll wait another 32 years before we decide that our legal ways are outdated"?

Oh, darn!

The Fourteenth Amendment was originally ratified to protect the former slaves from the abrogation of his rights by the Southern states.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Kind-of right.

If you say that's when it was ratified, I'll take your word on it rather than look the ratification date up. However, once the southern states became re-integrated in the Union, post-Reconstruction, there was a major backslide on the 14th Amendment. A modern view of it didn't exist until the 20th Century. If you know ANYTHING about the 14th Amendment, you know this. Prime example: The overturning of state Jim Crow laws.

[wyldwolf]

99. OK, sooo...

I know plenty about the 14th Amendment.

It began being applied immediately upon ratification on July 28, 1868.

Are you implying it just sat there until someone post 1900 decided to use it?

[DoNotRefill]

100. If it was applied....

than how do you explain the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow laws passed by the States???

[wyldwolf]

102. Easy...

The Supreme Court's ruling in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases diluted the amendment in an attempt to relax federal control over state police powers.

That began a states rights v. federal authority battle that ONLY spilled over into racial matters.

In fact, the basis was laid for Government Regulation after the Supreme Court heard the Slaughterhouse cases.

[DoNotRefill]

105. Ah, so you're saying...

"That began a states rights v. federal authority battle that ONLY spilled over into racial matters."

that the States can pass laws denying people their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights on a State level if it's not based upon race? That's crap, and you know it.

[wyldwolf]

107. Well, since I wasn't there...

...I can only rely on historical accounts...

But what I said was the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases relaxed federal powers, allowing laws to deny people their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights on a State level in matters of race.

Sad, but true.

Its interpretation came to be the legal heart of the civil rights movement of the `60s.

[DoNotRefill]

109. Ah.....

"Its interpretation came to be the legal heart of the civil rights movement of the `60s."

Finally, something we AGREE on. The basis of the Civil Rights movement was that the 14th amendment had been gutted by caselaw, and that States were basically ignoring it. The Incorporation Doctrine comes into full bloom at this point, requiring strict scrutiny to race based discrimination. Over time, different parts of the Bill of Rights have been Incorporated as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to various laws that are discriminatory. It's not finished yet. The basic tenet is that States cannot restrict civil rights "fundamental to an order of structured liberty" (in the Court's words). That's why if Presser was heard today, It's a foregone conclusion that it wouldn't be decided the same way.

You MUST admit that the slaughterhouse cases are no longer good law, yes?

[wyldwolf]

110. Yes, of course I agree BUT...

...but I don't agree there is some mythical 20th century benchmark

[DoNotRefill]

112. And yet you quote Presser...

when you should know the historical timeframe involved, and what came after. Presser is a good example of the late 19th century gradual evisceration of the 14th Amendment, and much of the damage has since been repaired (in the 20th century). Consequently, at the VERY least, it's suspect. I think if you run Presser on Lexis, there'd be a big red stopsign icon at the top of it, which should tell you something.

[jody]

5. SCOTUS does not take a case from a lobbyist or lobby group

The following two cases are on appeal to SCOTUS.

U.S. v. Emerson, 99-10331 (5th Cir. 2001) and Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098 (9th Cir. 2002)

Links to them can be found at Federal court opinions on the right to arms



Recommend you bookmark the following links because they have excellent bibliographies.

Second Amendment Foundation

GunCite

Violence Policy Center

[wyldwolf]

10. see post #9

[jody]

21. Why? SCOTUS has never made a definitive ruling on the 2nd. Please

read the opinions of the two federal cases I gave above and you will find that is true.

[wyldwolf]

28. Definitive?

In United States v. Warin, the court held that "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."

..and the rest of post 9.

[jody]

30. Have a nice day.

:hi:

[DoNotRefill]

34. Unadulterated horseshit.

The Supreme Court never HEARD Warin. Here's the full cite: United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).

That means it was appealed to the Supreme court, but they REFUSED TO HEAR THE CASE. That means no precedent was set.

[wyldwolf]

49. But why did they refuse to hear the case?

Because they had already ruled on such issues in the cases afore mentioned.

The court seldom hears cases pertaining to issues they've already decided on.

[DoNotRefill]

62. that shows such ignorance...

The court refuses to hear almost ALL cases submitted to it. There are a wide variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with if the lower court was correct. Ever hear of ripeness?

[wyldwolf]

66. The ignorance is yours...

The Supreme court will not hear cases in which they've already reached similar decisions. What a waste of time it would be if they did.

So if the 2nd Amendment's call for individual arms ownership is such an important issue, why won't they take the cases? Why won't your side call on them to?

[DoNotRefill]

71. Denial of Cert....

is NOT a statement that the lower court was right. And there are at least three major 2nd amendment cases seeking cert right now, brought by "pro-gunners". They've been ducking the issue since 1939 because when they finally rule, there will be hell to pay regardless of what they rule.

[wyldwolf]

77. Well, then, when those case are heard, then we can change the scope...

...of the argument. Until them, Supreme Court precident is still against individual gun ownership rights.

[DoNotRefill]

84. You've yet to cite a SINGLE case....

where the Supreme Court ruled it was a collective and not an individual right. Put up or shut up.

[wyldwolf]

89. Post #9...

..read it or shut up!

[DoNotRefill]

95. I've read it....

and it's bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

103. Then you make my point...

... if you don't like what a source says, you deny it's accuracy.

Typical.

[MrBenchley]

8. They're sure quick to sue

under their COLLECTIVE first amendment rights....

[wyldwolf]

11. To answer my original question...

... the gun industry, the NRA, and anyone who gets a firearm case to the Supreme Court on the basis of individual's "right" to possess firearms will lose the case. (reference post #9)

Which is why the NRA lobbies (pays off) Congress instead.

[MrBenchley]

12. Exactly so...

And what does it say about those who will not put their money where their mouth is?

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. It says, they LIKE EVERYONE AT DU

Don't trust the Supremes. Funny how on one hand we distrust them, but somehow magically, we are supposed to see them as knowing their asses from a hole in the ground.

[MrBenchley]

18. Hahahahahahahaha!!

Too funny....

So to the RKBA crowd, the Supreme Court is not competent to rule on Constitutional questions...but Ted Nugent is....

And bear in mind that Scalia and company installed the NRA's favorite drunk...and still the RKBA crowd are afraid they'll rule ob what the Second Amendment really says instead of their right wing fantasy....

[wyldwolf]

23. Double HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the sole interpreter of the Constitution and matters of law. For better or worse.

And, as post 9 demonstrated (and has gone unchallenged) the Court always rules against the notion of individual gun rights.

[MrBenchley]

55. Which is why AshKKKroft's "individual rights" fantasy

is ALWAYS described as a "radical" change....

Of course it's worth noting that the Justice Department now is being forced to argue in court against Soaring Eagle's idiotic public pronouncement...because dozens of violent convicted felons now in the jug for weapons violations promptly filed appeals based on that imbecile's lies.

[Superfly]

13. Proof?

Oh, yeah....you don't need any stinking proof. You are all knowing!

[wyldwolf]

15. You're not a reader, are you?

Look at post #9. Thank you.

[wyldwolf]

16. Do I hear the frantic typing of keyboards? Google working overtime?

Perhaps a call to Mr. Heston? Help! Someone has mentioned Supreme Court cases! What should I do???

[Superfly]

17. Are you talking to yourself?

You know, that's the first sign of multiple personality disorder. You might want to have that checked out.

[wyldwolf]

19. Apparantly I am talking to nyself because I just shut you down!

[Superfly]

22. Question for you....

what's it like to be a seventh grader nowadays? Your arguments are immature and lacking in substance, so I would put your age at around 12.

[wyldwolf]

25. Now, THAT's funny!

I provide detailed info on Supreme Court cases and you're talking about seventh grade!

Funny, yes, but sad, too, that you can not support your positions.

[Superfly]

27. You're not a reader, are you?

Where, in any part of this thread had I made one position (other than the assertion that your arguments are childish, assinine, and worthy of only an adolescent)?


Oh, that's right, I didn't!

[wyldwolf]

40. My arguments are those of the Supreme Court cases!

..but I guess THOSE are assinine, and worthy of only an adolescent to a gun nut.

[MrBenchley]

43. Shhhhhhhh....

We're supposed to ignore actual reality and pretend to swallow John AshKKKroft's fantasies down here, didn't you know? Everything else is "dividing the Democrats (snicker)."

[wyldwolf]

61. Yeah, but shaking the monkey cages is so much fun!

[MrBenchley]

70. Isn't it?

An appalling bunch, the RKBA crowd...bereft of logic, fact or decency. All they have is some stale right wing propaganda and pompous attitude....

[wyldwolf]

78. I wish I had the motivation to write a book...

..on all the silly rightwing talking points.

[MrBenchley]

80. What I finally did

was create "Bob Boudelang" to push those talking points to their absurd limits...

"Guns have been an exciting part of American life since Nathan Hale and Crispy Adams first got shot. (And LIEberals are always saying Crispy was black but they don't say he wasn't the type that would make cracks about Uncle Tom Sowell. He was a good black like J.C. Watts or the guy who fills in for Rush when he goes on vacation.) When Patrick Harry said "Give me liberty or give me death," he meant with guns. Let's get that straight! If Sarah Brady had been around then, we would probably still be slaves like the people in Canada. That was when the Malicious was formed to give us the blessings of liberty and peace, including guns.

Also would there have been a Civil War or would Lincoln have got shot without guns? It is scary to realize that there are people in this great country of ours who want to deny this. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringe," are the greatest words in history. That is why it is the Second of the first Ten Commandments, which we call the Bill of Rights. The gun grabbers want you to believe the Commandment has something to do with a well-regulated state militia like the National Guard. Well, if the Founding Fathers had meant that, they would have put it in. Ha!

"Let us have gun control," they cry like babies every time there is a school massacre or a shooting at some business. Don't they realize that it is the lack of guns that causes these massacres and shootings? Look back at American history and you will notice that whenever two armed men faced each other there was never any shooting. It was only when unarmed men got involved, like sodbusters or dudes from the East. Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, and the Lone Ranger all knew what guns were for. And that was, no shooting and killing. Are socialist Democrats so dumb that they cannot understand this? Look at John Wayne. Yes, he shot people but they deserved it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/bob/01/2001_bob_02.html

[wyldwolf]

83. YOU created Bob Boudelang?

EXCELLENT! Now those would make a good book!

[MrBenchley]

85. Your lips to the publisher's ears...

I'm trying to peddle a collection now....

[MrBenchley]

26. Yeah, fly...

He's not the mature sort of person who would post something like this:

"Superfly  (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-22-03 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Hey, they're your heros...
some of the people whose dicks you suck are lifetime NRA members. So, go cry a river to someone who cares."

[Superfly]

29. You don't even want to start that shit, do you?

Go cry a river....
Go peddle that...
What a pantload...

Man, you are the KING of childishness.

[MrBenchley]

36. Who are you trying to kid, fly?

You post right wing rubbish day and night, and now that you've run dry you've descended to personal attacks....

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

39. In post 9....

you cite a case that's out of date (it predates Incorporation), you misstate Miller, and you wrongly suggest that the Supreme Court heard Warin.

Definitive, my ass.

[wyldwolf]

41. I misstate "Miller" in as far as findlaw.com does...

...so you have a beef with them - and the court - for not ruling the way you think they should have.

[DoNotRefill]

64. Repeating somebody else's misstatement...

is still a misstatement. BTW, since when does Findlaw have any legal relevance? You're trying to uphold a secondary legal source as being somehow binding. That's not how it works.

[wyldwolf]

69. Ah, I see! I run into this line of reasoning when I debate ...

..rightwingers. They don't like the message so it must be wrong!

BWAHAHHAHAHAHA!

[DoNotRefill]

75. That's funny....

because I often see arguments similar to yours come from Right Wingers...a total denial of facts, coupled with gross ignorance on the relevant issues, coupled with personal attacks.

[wyldwolf]

79. The facts are in post 9...

..the rightwing spin is in all the "those cases don't matter anymore-those sources misstated the truth" responses.

etc.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

82. wyldwolf, Please note that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said

PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES

Justice Thomas, concurring.
QUOTE
The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: " well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. 1 If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. 2 As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries 1890, p. 746 (1833).
UNQUOTE

Nothing has changed since 1997 when Thomas made that personal statement in addition to the courts decision.

[MrBenchley]

86. Well, there's an ace to draw to!!!

"Nothing has changed since 1997 when Thomas made that personal statement"
Except that by now pretty much everyone in America recognizes what a mistake it was to put a extremist dimwit like Uncle Clarence on the court....

[wyldwolf]

91. I'm sorry, was that a court case or the man's opinion?

[jody]

93. It was just what I said it was. eom

[wyldwolf]

106. Well, good! Then that settles it...

Thomas's words have absolutely NO weight on the issue.

[jody]

111. Do you believe a Justice of SCOTUS would make a statement like that

if SCOTUS had already made a definitive decision? Do you have a comprehension problem?

Do you think Laurence Tribe is also wrong?

New view on arms rights angers liberals

QUOTE
WASHINGTON - Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's 'American Constitutional Law' was causing a stir.

Tribe , a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe , well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as ''wholly irrelevant.' ' Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that ''the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.' '

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, ''admittedly of uncertain scope,' ' to ''possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.' '
UNQUOTE


If you igonore Tribe who sides with Thomas, then your problem could be much more serious than comprehension.

[DoNotRefill]

113. jody, don't you know that Tribe is just another NRA Stooge? EOM

;-)

[FlashHarry]

114. Locking

Tempers are running pretty hot in this thread, so I'm going to lock it. Please feel free to start another one on the same subject––but, again, I remind people that it is perfectly fine to attack an idea, but it is not permissible to attack a person.

Thanks for your understanding.
FlashHarry
DU Moderator

[happyslug]

115. Two types of Cases the Court hates

First is Zoning laws, the second is Gun Control Laws.

The reason the court hates both is simple, each causes a split in the Republican - Democratic (Conservative - Liberal) coalitions on the Court.

The biggest problems of any Coalitions is holding them together. The GOP /Conservatives tend to be Big Businessmen AND Libertarian. Regarding hostility to Government regulations, Unions, environment, and the relationship between Government and Business these to groups tend to agree. The Democratic/Liberal coalition of Economic and Social Liberal also tend to favor Government Regulations regarding these same items.

The problem for both coalitions is that Zoning and gun control laws tend to break up these Coalitions. Big Businessmen and Social Liberals tend to like Zoning laws, for the main purpose of Zoning is to uphold the value of housing (And do not tell me that is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL grounds for Zoning, I know that, but these groups tend to favor Zoning Laws for their own economic gain through they tend to use other, Constitutional, reasons to uphold Zoning laws.

Civil Libertarian and Economic Liberals tend to dislike Zoning laws for most Zoning laws are used NOT to protect society as a whole, but to protect the value of housing. Both Economic Liberals and Libertarian tend to dislike any government regulation that only exists to protect wealth. Libertarian and Economic Liberals say you should be able to do with your property as you see fit, even if such action reduces the value of any surrounding property. Since Zoning laws rarely are used for environmental reasons or other reason that are supported by Economic Liberals these two groups tend to oppose most Zoning laws.

Gun control Laws are similar, Big Business would like Gun Control laws as would Economic Liberals (i.e. they want to control the population through the Government NOT through the actions of the people themselves). Libertarian and Social Liberals tend to oppose Gun Controls for they fear the fact that the Government would than be left with the sole use of force in Society.

My point here is that the two large coalitions in America (the GOP/Libertarian/Big Business and the Democrats\Social Liberals\Economic Liberals just break up on these two issues and thus both parties in an effort to preserve their own coalition tend to want Zoning and Gun Control cases to be ignored by the Courts.



Now a second reason is the GOP's weak hold on Rural America (Especially the Rural North). The rural North has always been more liberal than the GOP as a whole and the rural South (the Rural North is still Conservative, but no where near the Conservative of the rest of the GOP). The Rural North remembers it was what had defeated the South in the Civil War and it was fought to free people from unfair bondage. This "Liberal" streak runs deep but has been kept in check by the GOP over the Gun Control issue. If the Gun Control issue would disappear OR worse, be addressed by Liberal Democrats based on a Supreme Court Decision that banning firearms would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, The GOP would lose huge sections of this Country. West Virginia would be solidly Democratic as would be Tennessee. Rural Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Illinois would defect (It would be a slow change but enough to swing these states to solid Democratic majorities).

Thus the GOP plays the Gun Control Card for all that it is worth. THE GOP has to play it for the GOP is offering NOTHING to the rural populations (except for cut support for Rural electrification, crop support, highways, bridges and welfare programs that hurt rural America as much as the inner cities).

Thus the GOP knows that a Supreme Court ruling on the Second would kill its chances of getting a majority of the votes. Once the Second is flushed out (In my opinion, prohibiting restrictions as to rifles, shotguns, including assault rifles, but permitting restrictions on Pistols) the fears of the rural north regarding Gun Control will disappear. The rural north can live with a ban on handguns, but any ban on Rifles or Shotguns will cause them great harm (Both are used as tools on small farms AND in rural Social Gatherings). The rural north are told "the Democrats want you guns" and take that the Democrats want not only their pistols but also their Rifles and Shotguns. A ruling by the Supreme Court that the Second prohibits the States and the Federal Government from banning rifles and Shotguns (and restricting any restrictions on owning rifles and Shotguns) would mean many rural voters will have to decide to vote on some grounds other than "The Democrats want to take your guns". Once these other reasons come into play, Rural Voters will tend to see their interest are more protected by the Democrats than the GOP. It is THAT conclusion that drives the GOP's fight to have any decision by the Supreme Court regarding the Second.

Thus the GOP does NOT want a Supreme Court decision, it may get one because just like the MIA issue, it has escaped from the Control of the GOP. We will have to see if the Court wants to take these Second Amendment cases. Given Bush vs Gore the Court may fell like it has to appease its liberal wing and take a Second Amendment case. We will have to see, but the Supreme Court likes to rule by with all nine in agreement and if the Liberals on the Court fight long enough they will get the Gun Control cases on the Supreme Court Docket.