is there any way bush can have every member of a state goverment held in federal detention as enemy combatants ?
To: freepatriot32
600,000 members, eh?
More than the NOW can claim. (By about 3 times the actual paid number.)
But I'll have to wait with bated breathe for that little factoid to be released on ABCNNBCBS....
How many does the NRA claim? 1.4 - 1.5 million, isn't it?
2 posted on
01/26/2003 11:21:06 AM PST by
Robert A Cook PE
(I really want to kill that D**M ostrich..... Why can't we donate our taxes to FR, vice the IRS?)
To: freepatriot32
I think it's a mistake to go around calling it a 'literacy test'. It gives the opposition an opportunity to make fun of pro-gun people as fearing to be revealed as illiterates.
To: freepatriot32
I'd be willing to have a literacy test for gun owners if we also get to have a literacy test for voters.
To: freepatriot32
Every Californian, and every person who cares about gun rights in California, needs to go to
California Citizens for Self-Defense and enter their contact information.
In California, we have no right to own firearms:
If plaintiffs [gun owners] are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitutions declaration of rights, they are simply wrong.
[California Supreme Court, Kasler v. Lockyer (2000)]
... the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms...
[Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Silveira v. Lockyer (2002)]
We are working to amend the California constitution to include the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home, linking it to the fundamental right to defend life and liberty, protect property, and secure safety listed in the first words of the state's constitution.
We need about 580,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, and in 2000 we collected 650,000.
7 posted on
01/26/2003 11:31:35 AM PST by
mvpel
To: freepatriot32
"Dr. King reminded us all that a right delayed is a right denied,"I was under the impression that owning a gun was no longer a "right" in California.
In any event, it should be obvious that these type of laws are intended to restrain the poor in general and the minorities in specific. 14th Ammendment issues would apply if 2nd Amendment issues did not.
8 posted on
01/26/2003 11:31:50 AM PST by
templar
To: freepatriot32
11 posted on
01/26/2003 11:34:10 AM PST by
freepatriot32
(Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison.")
To: freepatriot32
What is it that makes California and New Jersey the lands of the insane politicians?
To: freepatriot32
Unbelievable!
15 posted on
01/26/2003 12:12:51 PM PST by
basil
To: freepatriot32
BLAM!
21 posted on
01/26/2003 12:27:58 PM PST by
lodwick
To: freepatriot32
I don't understand how local and state jurisdictions can go farther than the fedgov, in regulation of guns. It is a right in the constitution
24 posted on
01/26/2003 1:06:58 PM PST by
jeremiah
(Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
To: freepatriot32
Literacy test question for black voters(before 1965)...
good also for gun buyers.
"How many bubbles are there in a bar of soap?"
To: freepatriot32
A "we need a tax on stupid politicians" bump.
38 posted on
01/26/2003 8:31:47 PM PST by
OneLoyalAmerican
(Convict pedophile wannabe traitor Ritter thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829655/posts)
To: freepatriot32
Proud to be an SAF member.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson