Brady Bill takes one in the chest!!!

metz · October 2001

And so did Emerson. The 5th district court just negated the descion in his case sending it back down for a bad time for him. In so doing however they upheld the right of the citizen, CITIZEN, to own and bear arms with exclusions from Miller. Looks like Brady is closer to dying a nice death at it's sunset in '94.Vote!!! It's important, we need to get back what Heir Klinton and his lacky Gwhore took from us.For the long version: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub99/99-10331-cr0.htm [This message has been edited by metz (edited 10-16-2001).]

salzo · October 2001

saxon- I am still trying to figure this whole thing out, but I am not sure about what you have read into it. As far as "No purpose for citizens to own sawed offs and machine guns: Are you sure that they were stating that, or were they refering to what was stated in Miller?Secondly, are you sure about the Government regulating it through an "interstate commerce loophole? Again, I cant find that.The way I am reading the decision, the court stated that Emerson was not afforded any protection, because he did demonstrate that he was a threat(threatening his wife and children with a firearm), and therefore his right could be suspended until judicial procedings. I could be wrong, but that is what I am getting from the decision.And I did not see the "interstate commerce" part that you refered to, though I might have missed it.

metz · October 2001

My read is it upholds the NFA and pokes large holes in Brady. The part about owning by individuals did seem to include "military" style rifles and last I checked we were still using FA in the military. Though I may be flamed, I don't have a problem with registration of full auto guns. With all the * hitting the fan as of late nightmares of a rag head buying a ma deuce and visiting say mardi gras it becomes apparent to me that someone needs to keep an eye on where the heavy stuff goes. I do think the tax should be removed (wasn't the poll tax repealed???)and the process simplified to a nics style purchase and all states should be conformed. Anyway just prelim thoughts, hope this works in "our" favor, feels like it was a victory in a big way against the Klinton Reich and that brady stupidity.Andy

M.Opaliski · October 2001

I haven't read the decision yet, printed the 55 pages and will read it tonight at work. Comments will follow, perhaps tomorrow or the next day.

Support your RKBA ... MatthewNRA Life MemberTalk Radio Junkie opaliski@hotmail.com TheFirearmsEnthusiast

turbo · October 2001

Thanks for post, nice piece.This case may wind up before the Supreme Case, like all the other ones reffered to in this decision.I don't see a problem, with any of it; actually the decision covers established law, concerning "firearms" as defined by the statue.There is alot of good reference material here, leading back to the established arguments by Federalists and Anti Federalists, arguments that are still being used today. Even though the highest court has already settled the matter.Thanks for the info.

M.Opaliski · October 2001

Although I believe this case brings to light the most detailed and well written example of the argument supporting an individual's right to keep and bear personal arms, the fact is that the Emerson decision upholds nothing in relation to the Second Amendment, legally speaking. The issue of whether or not the right to bear arms is that of the individual or that of the state was not put before the court for a decision, so, in effect the 5th Circuit Court's opinion on the Second Amendment albeit an extremely well researched, clearly defined and articulate finding is in no way a ruling on the issue and sets no legal precedence. As per the special concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Robert Parker, which I read to be somewhat of a dissention, he specifically state that the court had no reason, nor the authority to make such a finding as it relates to Second Amendment. Despite the fact that Judge Parker suggests that no other court should rely on this courts finding that the Second Amendment does in fact give the right to bear arms to the people as individuals - I am confident that someone will take advantage of the research done by the 5th Circuit Court and seek to have a precedent set using the information contained within the Emerson ruling.

Support your RKBA ... MatthewNRA Life MemberTalk Radio Junkie opaliski@hotmail.com TheFirearmsEnthusiast

Andrew Adams · October 2001

Judge Colt,I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the reason for the painstaking and exquisite defesne and interpretation of the second by the court is in preparation for their fine work being read by the Supremes. What I read in that decision is an enormous amount of research into the original intent of the second amendment, in a sense trying to do the work of the Supreme Court for them. If that goes to the Supreme Court, I think we have a good chance of the Supremes upholding their argument for the personal model of the Second Amendment, which would be the greatest victory for gun owners in over fifty years.I'm actually not sure what the views of the individual members of the court are regarding gun ownership, but it seems to me that we have the makings of a 5-4 decision in our favor right now.

When you want to dial long distance...AT&T, .223, or Jeremiah 33.3?

salzo · October 2001

Andrew Adams-Do you really think we have a 5-4 right now? I think Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist are on board. I think Kennedy is a maybe, and I can hear Sandra Day say something to the effect that the second can be limited because"you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre" or some variation on that concept. I cant see any of the liberal wing of the court voting pro second, with thge exception of maybe Souter. Then again, I can be totally wrong.