Score!!!

It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban

On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban

Watch out, or Danlw will be around to tell you "And, who gives a
shit? Go post on a politics group, Asshat."

Greg Mossman wrote:
> So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being
> Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun
> registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on
> the Court again, we'll collect them all.

Not even close... There's plenty of us who will not register our
firearms because we know what will come next... As we've been saying for
years, "first comes registration, then confiscation"... Is it so fuckin'
difficult to consider that perhaps the FFs actually *meant* what they
said when they said, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1173479066.617762.42790@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>
> Watch out, or Danlw will be around to tell you "And, who gives a
> shit? Go post on a politics group, Asshat."

That'd really hurt my feelings.

Or not.

Greg Mossman wrote:

> On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>
>
> "Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still 'subject to the
> same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as
> limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.' Such restrictions might
> include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or
> restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally
> ill."
>
> So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being
> Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun
> registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on
> the Court again, we'll collect them all.
>

Either way it's a setback for you and your ilk.



--
“TAANSTAFL”

__________________________________________________ __________________________
Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.
“There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
“We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but
one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for
but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
--Theodore Roosevelt...1907

__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

On Mar 9, 6:34 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net>
wrote:
> Greg Mossman wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>
> > "Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still 'subject to the
> > same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as
> > limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.' Such restrictions might
> > include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or
> > restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally
> > ill."
>
> > So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being
> > Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun
> > registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on
> > the Court again, we'll collect them all.
>
> Either way it's a setback for you and your ilk.

Somehow I doubt it really matters to him, or his ilk either.

JF

Chris Guynn wrote:
> It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>
>

Damn Straight

And I thought from the court in or around Washington DC!

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1173478973.502334.39770@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>
> "Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still 'subject to the
> same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as
> limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.' Such restrictions might
> include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or
> restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally
> ill."
>
> So even if the Supreme Court, with the majority of its members being
> Republican appointees, upholds the decision, we can still require gun
> registration. Nice indeed. As soon as we get a liberal majority on
> the Court again, we'll collect them all.

Dare to dream.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1173501565.420605.159750@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 9, 7:35 pm, "Danlw" <dan...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
>> "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1173479066.617762.42790@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> It's not a Supreme Court Ruling, but it's still pretty nice.
>>
>> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/..._us/dc_gun_ban
>>
>> > Watch out, or Danlw will be around to tell you "And, who gives a
>> > shit? Go post on a politics group, Asshat."
>>
>> Please, Lawyer, keep to beating around the Bush. DY
>
> You misspelled "bashing".
>
> It's actually a very smart move to gain court support for gunism now
> that Bush has practically guaranteed us the presidency in 2008. With
> anti-gun majorities in both houses and soon the presidency, the courts
> are your only hope.
>
> "Help me Obi Wan Kenobi"

You keep forgetting--we still do have guns. What you just said is the
reason the FFs put in the second amendment. I do not count on the courts for
anything the majority of the time, especially common sense, which obviously
isn't common.Of course, being a part of the 9th circut "justice" system,
that does not seem to get through to you. How surprising--not. Dan

On Mar 9, 11:27 pm, "Danlw" <dan...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:

> You keep forgetting--we still do have guns. What you just said is the
> reason the FFs put in the second amendment. I do not count on the courts for
> anything the majority of the time, especially common sense, which obviously
> isn't common.Of course, being a part of the 9th circut "justice" system,
> that does not seem to get through to you. How surprising--not. Dan- Hide quoted text -

[Eugene Volokh, March 9, 2007 at 1:23pm]

Key Excerpts from the D.C. Circuit Second Amendment Decision:
The whole decision is much worth reading (http://
pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf),
and, except for the standing issues, quite nontechnical. It's also
hard to boil down, since the argument's components are closely
integrated. Still, here is what seems to me to be the best very short
excerpt:

In determining whether the Second Amendment's guarantee is an
individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important
word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the
right - "the people." That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth,
Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these
provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals
against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also
note that the Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" - indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between "the people," on the one hand, and "the
states," on the other. The natural reading of "the right of the
people" in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in
the Bill of Rights.

The District's argument, on the other hand, asks us to read "the
people" to mean some subset of individuals such as "the organized
militia" or "the people who are engaged in militia service," or
perhaps not any individuals at all - e.g., "the states." These
strained interpretations of "the people" simply cannot be squared with
the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions....

The District points to the singular nature of the Second Amendment's
preamble as an indication that the operative clause must be restricted
or conditioned in some way by the prefatory language. However, the
structure of the Second Amendment turns out to be not so unusual when
we examine state constitutional provisions guaranteeing rights or
restricting governmental power. It was quite common for prefatory
language to state a principle of good government that was narrower
than the operative language used to achieve it.

We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory
language announcing the desirability of a well-regulated militia -
even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia [which
the court had earlier concluded "was a large segment of the
population" rather than just a government-selected National Guard-like
subgroup -EV] - is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right
to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect "the right of
militiamen to keep and bear arms," but rather "the right of the
people." The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership
and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state
militias....

[i]f the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the
right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to
imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We
therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the
people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the
preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political
benefit - and thus the most appropriate to express in a political
document.