Lying Scholars Fuel Anti-Gun Court Verdicts

RichardPoe.com ^ | November 9, 2003 | Richard Poe

[SteveH]

NY Sullivan Law *bang

[sourcery]

"Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle, and quick to anger!"

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

[pabianice]

Doesn't matter. Liberal judges will take-away all private firearms regardless of the law unless they are stopped from doing so.

[AlaskaErik]

I have an uncle who lives in that cesspool known as New York City. It goes without saying that I will never visit him there.

[Texas_Jarhead]

2nd Amendment BUMP

[chuckwalla]

That's right
The only law that matters to the left is what they want to make up to suit their agenda.
It changes according to what they need at any particular time.

[SJSAMPLE]

I agree, but his status as a SEAL, lawyer or veteran should grant him NOTHING. He shold be allowed to carry as a citizen of the United States and nothing more. The current argument is to allow retired LEO to carry as a way of dispersing the argument for all citizens to exercise their rights.

[TC Rider]

Not only does United States v. Miller confirm citizen gun rights, but Levinson says it strongly implies "that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare…"

My recollection from readings is that the court found against Miller because the court felt that a shotgun was not an effective combat weapon. Of course today, shotguns are regularly issued and used in Irag by our troops.

[Travis McGee]

Only the police and military need handguns.

[Larry Lucido]

Ping

[facedown]

Good article - BTTT.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Anyone, regardless of position, profession or prominence in rank, who rules that even one of the Bill of Rights-, does not pertain to the individual rights of every citizen of the United States of America, is either a liar unfit to be making such decisions or a complete damn Constitutionally illeterate fool who should not be making such decisions!

The United States Government already had the right to maintain an Armed Militia, that provision and the arming thereof was already a fact in the body of the United States Constitution. The second amendment merely conveyed that right to every Citizen of this country.

It doesn't matter how poorly written and open to argument and twisted interpretations it may be. THe only thing that need be remembered is that the Bill of rights, clarifies certain inaleinable rights of individual states, that the representatives of those states demanded before lending their blessings and authorization to, the Constitution of these United States.

THe Courts may have the power to bully and abuse a citizen who is excercising their right to keep and bear arms, they have the power to make his/her life unbearable and make a criminal of that gun bearer. The Courts have that power and the citizen is almost helpless to resist, but the citizen is a victem of abusive government and the courts are guilty of bastardizing the very document they swore to defend.

[chuckwalla]

You know after all the horrific history that proves the 2d amendment right the left still refuses to see. Why????
The only explaination I can come up with is that they are addicted to power and see any threat to their power as illegal.
A simple reading of the Warsaw ghetto uprising should convince any natural thinking person of the importance of firearms in the hands of private citizens. But not them.
No amount of history or law or logic works.

[Imal]

Leftists oppose private ownership of guns because it interferes with genocide.

[Cloud William]

My recollection from readings is that the court found against Miller because the court felt that a shotgun was not an effective combat weapon. Of course today, shotguns are regularly issued and used in Irag by our troops.

Shotguns were in military armories long before the Miller decision. Here's a modern reproduction of the WWI-era Winchester 1897 "Trench Gun":

[lelio]

"[B]ecause of my occupation within the Department of Defense and Naval Special Warfare, I believe my family and I are at greater risk of being targeted by those seek[ing] to carry out symbolic acts of terror," Bach argued in court papers.

While I support his lawsuit, I don't like that you have to show a reason to carry a gun around. What about those of us that aren't naval attorneys? Not to mention that I find it hard to believe that someone's going to target an attorney as a "symbolic act of terror".

Hopefully gun ownership won't be broken down into those that work for the state and those that don't.

[chuckwalla]

Miller lost/defaulted because he didn't show up.
I don't believe the firearm in question was ever ruled illegal.

[groanup]

The Miller case was about SAWED-OFF shotguns.