[ThreePuttinDude]

Now they are trying to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment.

[mvpel]

In the Nordyke v. King gun-show ban case, the Nordyke's petition for an en banc review was submitted on April 1, and the Ninth Circuit has since asked for a response brief from the defendants, Alameda County.

This may indicate that they are willing to conduct such a review, since most of the time such petitions are summarily denied.

The county's brief is due on June 1.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Law]

Bump.

[joesnuffy]

The elite cannot abide the common man (we the people) having liberties equal to theirs...
This imo, offends their sensibilities and belief in their own superiority and birthright-to rule...over a crass lowborn unter-menchen

They also know in their hearts a fear of the masses...and that an armed populace will not abide an evil ruler and have not only the will to depose him/her but also the means....

Yet the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms viewed as a collective right of the state only - is imo, as ludicrous as viewing the 1st ammendment applied to free speech with those limitations.....Free Speech... only to the govt or those appointed by govt. to speak?

HA!

[supercat]

One major problem is that the published syllabus for U.S. v. Miller, which was not written by the Court itself and does not have any legal authority whatsoever, does not accurately state what the decision actually said. Judges in other cases have apparently read the syllabus rather than Miller itself, and thus set faulty precedents.

Neither Jack Miller no co-defendant Frank Layton was ever convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The question before the court was whether Miller and Layton could quash their indictment without having to present any evidence of anything. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of whether a particular firearm was suitable for use in a well-functioning militia was an evidentiary question and thus had to be decided in trial court.

Although Jack Miller was dead by the time U.S. v. Miller was decided, Frank Layton was still very much alive when the government was given the go-ahead to proceed with prosecution. The government, however, decided to offer a plea-bargain for time served rather than going to trial court. Can anyone think of any other case in which a plea-bargain for time served was considered a government victory?

[Sonny M]

They are evil wicked people. Even Charles Shumer, the slimiest of the slime, conceded that the second amendment was an individual right, and he did it, when he blasted the white house for saying it arguing that Olsen saying that is justice department policy now, is opening the door to repeal gun control laws. Basically, to put it nicely, he was saying "yes, we know its individual, and gun control laws are against the constitution, but if you say it, then we are going to have problems gutting the constitution so stop it".

[husky ed]

Go to a debate and ask the canidates if they support the constitution?
Then ask if they support the 2nd Amendment.

If they say no, ask them are they lying when they take the oath of office?

[aruanan]

What the Supreme Court Has Said aboutthe Second Amendment

When the branches of government do not uphold and protect the Constitution, it remains for the people to do so. If a branch of government flouts the Constitution, it has, by that action, shown itself to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

[Jay D. Dyson]

"Shall NOT Be Infringed!" bump.