Replies

The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision. As to the Equal Protection claims, we conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute’s provisions regarding active peace officers. We find, however, no rational basis for the establishment of a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers, and hold that the retired officers’ exception fails even the most deferential level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, we conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit.

Hey supremes, did you assholes ever read this???

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

Thanks for that info!

I was just interviewed (and recorded) by Robert Goodman of CBSnews NY.

He recorded the interview over the phone. Dunno if it'll be on radio or added to a story on TV.(thinking radio) What I said was that we are not disappointed, there are other cases out there that are coming up. Also that the New Orleans Circuit has ruled that it is an individual right. Also that perhaps by not accepting the case the Supreme Court was avoiding problems of the differences between the two courts. I did point out that this is NOT a ruling by the Supreme Court that the 2nd is not an individual right, it's just a refusal to hear a case. I also told him that the 97th Congress, Committee on the Judciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, found that indeed, there IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. (he did not know this!-hehe!)