Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/20/2006 10:11:10 AM PDT by Liberty Ship
Barr sues Bloomberg on behalf of gun dealer
The Associated Press Published on: 07/20/06
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr filed a lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Thursday, claiming his attempt to crack down on gun dealers was "careless, willful and clearly illegal."
The legal action, filed in Cobb County Superior Court, is in response to a federal lawsuit filed by Bloomberg in May alleging that 15 firearm brokers in five states, including Georgia, were "rogue gun dealers."
Barr said his client, Smyrna gun dealer Adventure Outdoors, was deceived and defamed by Bloomberg's lawsuit. His lawsuit seeks $400 million in damages.
"We didn't start this fight. They did," Barr told a cheering crowd in Marietta's city square. "But we intend to finish it and win."
Bloomberg's lawsuit claims that the dealer sold 21 guns over a seven-year period that were used in New York crimes. The shop's owner, Jay Wallace, said his name has been "trashed in the public eye of the nation."
"I've run my business with honesty and integrity, and I take pride in being part of the firearm industry," he said.
The announcement took on a patriotic tune as flag-waving supporters cheered the news of the lawsuit and danced.
"We will fight to prove the Constitution of the United States is still intact, and that Mr. Bloomberg's fight to abolish the Second Amendment must and will fail," said Edwin Marger, a Jasper lawyer who filed the lawsuit with Barr.
Apparently the same place Chicago Mayor Daley's Jack Booted Gun Grabbing Thugs find theirs.
Not me, mind you, but some hold that individuals would be restricted to individual weapons. the ma deuce is a crew served weapon.
Now I look at the letters of marque and reprisal phrase, and that reminds me that ships of war were and are one of the very best kinds of crew served weapons. Such ships were private possessions, and were converted into privateers upon permission, need and cause. Before that they would have to be privately owned.
I am just saying that if your right as a gun owner arises from your status as an individual in the unorganized militia, then it could be reasonable to restrict those rights to individual weapons. That reading would not extend rights to individual weapons to adult women, because they are not considered members of the militia.
There is also an extension from age 45 to 65 if one has previously trained or served as an officer (or noncommissioned or warrant officer). That clause is referenced in section 311, but I don't remember it offhand.
Here is the complaint:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/bloombergcomplaint.pdf
"couldn't care less" /pickypoint
Would a privateer group typically be incorporated, and the corporation own the weapons?
All Bloomberg and his jack-booted thugs proved is that, if one is willing to break the law, laws don't matter. He inadvertanly made the strongest case possible against, so-called, gun-control legislation
___ (yes/no) I intend to use this fawggin' gun I fawggin bought to commit a fawggin crime in New Yawk.
This is like suing certain Chevy dealers because their customers drive drunk more than other Chevy dealers' customers do.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
your favorite mayor is about to get his @ss handed to him in this lawsuit. Happy days are here again :-)
Never happen.
He'll just compensate for the loss by jacking up the taxes on cigarettes again.
Mayor BloomingIdiot believes that he should be able to do and say anything he pleases and the constituents are supposed to sit back and take it.
So, anytime I see him getting slapped in his ugly face, makes my day!
Thanks for the correction.
>>>Miller v. US is on of the most cited cases concening Second Ammendment rights.<<<
According to the SCOTUS in U.S. vs Miller, every adult male is in the militia and has the right to keep and bear an M-16. This came from the fact that the court never challenged Miller's assertion that he was in the militia; and from the fact that the only reason the court ruled against Miller was the erroneous belief by the court that his sawed-off shotgun was not of a type used by the military.
"I am just saying that if your right as a gun owner arises from your status as an individual in the unorganized militia,"
"A well regulated Militia," has always been interpreted by scholars of the English language to be a subordinate clause. It's more of an independent statement that agrees that the US should have a "A well regulated Militia," and influences nothing in the rest of The Second Amendment.
The operational phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." basically stands alone.
Unfortunately, we've let the whole "Militia" thing become part of the argument, when it shouldn't even be considered.
GA ping!!!
Please read my post #55.
The whole "Militia" thing is overstated and misinterpreted.
Belonging to a militia has no bearing on one's right to "keep and bear arms".
>>>The whole "Militia" thing is overstated and misinterpreted. Belonging to a militia has no bearing on one's right to "keep and bear arms".<<<
Agree. My statement was merely a reflection on how the court ruled.
Watch you farking language, Sir!!! ;-P
Definitely.
Under their interpretation, I wouldn't be paying $15,000 for a 20 year-old M-16 right now ;)
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.