2 Crucial RTKABA cases

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Netfotoj, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    For those of you represented by whom the NRA labels "Anti-gun Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)" a note from the latest NRA-ILA bulletin.

    Anti-Gun Senator Does Bloomberg's Bidding --
    Yanks Tiahrt Amendment From Appropriations Bill


    Read the whole thing, if you can stand it. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3088

    And while you're there, read this one, too:

    Brady (Disinformation) Campaign Begins Against Parker V. D.C.

    Obviously, this case is about a whole lot more than the right of D.C. residents to have a lawful firearm. It goes to the root of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms "individually" not just as a militia member, which is how the founding fathers intended for this crucial part of our bill of rights to be interpreted.

    Read all about it: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3087
     
  2. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    The expected post-November election assault is on. Stay on the phones and email to your Congresscritters just like the illegal immigration amnesty plus bill.
     

  3. smores

    smores Guest

    289
    0
    0
    I'm represented by that troll....

    Believe me, I've been calling. I don't think she cares much though :roll:
     
  4. Well,

    I love their rhetoric they use to slant people's opinions. For instance, notice that they say that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that those who are not "active members of the militia" are able to bear arms. This is a total distortion of the opinion and shows that they either haven't read it, are incapable of understanding it, or are just outright liars.

    What the Court of Appeals held was that every citizen is "a member of the militia," unless disqualified from being a part of it (ie. criminal, mentally disabled). The Court supported its opinion by examining the Militia Act and found that every White Male between the age of 18-45 who owned property was considered a member of the militia. The Court in Parker went on to reason that since rights have been extended by the Constitution to include equal right for women, minorities, and those who do not own property that this now included every citizen. In effect, they were saying the "selective service" is a type of militia registry today that we keep just as the list of citizens available for the militia was kept back during the early days of our nation.

    The anti-Constitution crowd would like to have you read "militia" as a State national guard, but the DC Circuit and the majoirty of Law Review articles have supported the individual rather than State right. The Parker case also reasoned that if the founding fathers had intended to make it a state right they would have included the word "state" like they did for the Tenth Amendment.

    It really is a great opinion that is well written and well reasoned , but I suspect that most people will never read it and get their information from the Mass Media who parot whatever the Brady Group says. :roll:

    Too bad, because if you don't support the Second Amendment and allow that to chipped away you render the whole Constitution as some up for grabs at the will of the mob thing. I support the entire Constitution and I wish the Brady Group would as well.
     
  5. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    "...or are just outright liars. "
    ---------
    Bingo
     
  6. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Unholster the 2nd Amendment

    The Washington, D.C. gun-ban appeal is the most significant gun-control decision in 68 years, now pending before the Supreme Court, says Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute in this op-ed in the L.A. Times:

    Unholster the 2nd Amendment

    Just imagine what the likely outcome of that upcoming decision would be if “President Al Gore” had appointed Supreme Court justices for the past eight years? And imagine if you dare a Supreme Court packed by “President Hillary Clinton.” Shudder!
     
  7. BulletBait

    BulletBait New Member

    278
    1
    0
    Well, SCOTUS took no action on Parker yesterday.

    We'll have to wait till the 21st to see if the grant Cert.
     
  8. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Well, it happened today: Court agrees to rule on gun case

    One possible semi-good outcome of this case challenging the gun-ban in Washington, D.C., could have been the court refusing to hear the case, which would have meant the appeals court ruling overturning the ban would have stood. At least good news for D.C. residents, but not for the rest of us.

    But by accepting the case, the high court will either throw out the D.C. gun ban or uphold it. Really good or really bad. We'll just have to wait and see.

    From what I'm reading, the balance lies with Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. Somehow letting someone named Kennedy decide the most important 2nd Amendment case is 70 years just doesn't leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Let us pray... :roll:
     
  9. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
  10. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,188
    32
    48
    Them's Fightin' Words, Mister!!!!!!

    :evil: :evil: :evil:

    ...that kind O' 'maginin' boils my blood.....

    :? :? :?
     
  11. I'm fairly confident.

    All I can say is that it is about time the Supreme Court has reviewed government action restricting the Second Amendment. They visit issues about every other Amendment all day long, but have ignored the Second for over 70 years.

    My hope is that the Court will rule the Second is a fundamental individual right where government action seeking to restrict it must be narrowly tailored to address a specific appropriate government interest. Outright bans like the various state AWBs, Michigan's SBR/SBS restrictions, the 1968 GCA "Sporting Purposes" clause, the 1934 nFA Chief LEO requirement, and the 1986 FOPA machinegun ban need to all go buh-bye.

    The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the District of Columbia was clear that restrictions of what citizens were to be members of the militia were appropriate in cases like felons and those judged insane. However, the Court of Appeals was firm in stating that the government could not ban firearm ownership or possession of lawful citizens.

    If the anti-gun crowd want to say the Second doesn't apply anymore or that times have changed...blah, blah and so forth then they need to petition to have the Constitution amended.
     
  12. Well, with any luck if Senator Clinton is nominated by her party and wins the general election she will only be able to appoint liberal Justices to replace other liberal Justices. The three Justices most likely retire are all liberal. However, the thing that would keep me up at night would be a tragic accident like the slight stroke that Chief Justice Roberts had, which could have been more serious. God forbid Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts or even Kennedy suddenly died it would be scary as heck. Such a liberal swing in the Court would pretty much spell doom for our American way of life.