In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
It's posted, I don't see many posts though....
Comengetit
Member Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't think they are ready for this yet. I imagine we'll get the usual scoffs and I'll be called all sorts of idiotic names (I have broad shoulders) I can take it. If we don't get any interest, I'm going to another board I know they'll pony up. They are quite a bit further ahead than these folks are. I'd be surprised if we raised one shiny buffalo nickel here at GB, sad as it is I think these folks are just happy with their two guns, a dog, and a place to chat. No offense to any of them facts is facts.[:)]
I posted it you guys can check it.
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative
I posted it you guys can check it.
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative
Comments
pickenup: Better yet do you think we could get the whole thread moved over to gun rights? I really don't want to type all of that again. I know C & P.
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative
(some people do not get on here every day [:0])
The thread will get maximum exposure in GD. I could C & P it here if you really think it needs to be in here, but I'd like to leave the original there, just to see the replies.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Once again please accept my apology. However..knowing exactly what we are up against is absolutely vital.
I hang around this site because...I guess morbid fascination. How can these people proclaim themselves as being pro-gunners..while supporting myried gun laws...proclaim themselves as Second Amendment supporters..much as the president..while ordering his minions to enforce thousands of gun laws...?????
Have ye no faith in your fellow members?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
You, friend, have been posting here nearly as long as I...you can count the supporters of the Second on your fingers.
You read it any different ?
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative
Trying to see if there is any way to rouse them from their torpor...mostly failure.
My figure of 3 % stands firm..even drawing from the ranks of 'staunch gun owners'....
Just how can it be..the level of brain-washing existing in America..I grieve for my country.
Maybe all of us regulars here on GR should keep posting on this GD thread, that way Comengetit doesn't look like a glory hound just upping his post count. Maybe that will start a snowball effect.
quote:3% stands firm..even drawing from the ranks of 'staunch gun owners'
3% times 300,000,000 = 9,000,000. $1 each might get us into Gerry Spence territory.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
The long and the short of this is in order to get the "generalites" to pony up for a good cause we have to make a clear statement of what we're looking to attack in the court system.
We need a Supreme Court decision confirming or denying the Right of an Individual to "Keep and Bear Arms"......and " Shall Not Be Infringed"....what exactly do those words mean.
The ramifications of those words strike deeply into the heart of the beast. Does government have the authority to strike down the Constitution at will ? The answer today, at this point...and since 1935...is "Yes"......
Now we just have to be sure that this is really something we should do at this time or wait on the NRA while preparing in the background. Last chance for them.
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/09/roberts_on_the.php
It does sound like Roberts, the pending CHIEF JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT, has done quite a bit of research on the 2nd Amendment:
quote:"FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.
You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
FEINGOLD: [I have no idea why there are two successive "FEINGOLDs" here. This appears to be continuous Feingold, that is, the above para. is not Roberts.] The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.
In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.
The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.
So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?
ROBERTS: Yes. Well, I mean, you're quite right that there is a dispute among the circuit courts. It's really a conflict among the circuits.
The 5th Circuit -- I think it was in the Emerson case, if I'm remembering it correctly -- agreed with what I understand to be your view, that this protects an individual right. But they went on to say that the right was not infringed in that case. They upheld the regulations there.
The 9th Circuit has taken a different view. I don't remember the name of the case now. But a very recent case from the 9th Circuit has taken the opposite view that it protects only a collective right, as they said.
In other words, it's only the right of a militia to possess arms and not an individual right.
Particularly since you have this conflict -- cert was denied in the Emerson case -- I'm not sure it's been sought in the other one or will be. That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.
I know the Miller case side-stepped that issue. An argument was made back in 1939 that this provides only a collective right. And the court didn't address that. They said, instead, that the firearm at issue there -- I think it was a sawed-off shotgun -- is not the type of weapon protected under the militia aspect of the Second Amendment.
So people try to read the tea leaves about Miller and what would come out on this issue. But that's still very much an open issue.
FEINGOLD: I understand that case could come before you. I'm wondering if you would anticipate that in such a case that a serious question would be: Which interpretation is correct?
ROBERTS: Well, anytime you have two different courts of appeals taking opposite positions, I think you have to regard that as a serious question. That's not expressing a view one way or the other. It's just saying, "I know the 9th Circuit thinks it's only a collective right. I know the 5th Circuit thinks it's an individual right. And I know the job of the Supreme Court is to resolve circuit conflicts." So I do think that issue is one that's likely to come before the court."
I think the view that Miller decides in favor of an individual right for military-type guns (what I call a "hyrbid right") rather than leaving the issue open is the better one. Miller, after all, reverses and remands in order that evidence be taken on the sawed-off shotgun. I'm offhand unaware of any caselaw on how one interprets a Supreme Court ruling in this setting, but--
(1) The collective rights claim was briefed by the government, I think as its primary argument.
(2) It seems to me that if the Court was of the view that there was no individual right, there would have been no purpose to remanding after stating the lower court erred in not taking evidence regarding the gun. That'd merely be generating more work, after which the Supremes would have to announce it was all for naught -- there's no right here, and whether the gun is military or not is of no moment.
(3) The Court cites as its authority, not the then existing collective rights cases (i.e., City of Salina) but the existing individual "hyrbid" cases (i.e., Aymette)."
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Highball,
Spam filter must be set real high, email bounces back.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
We have to be careful because when the Supreme Court doesn't want to deal with a controversial issue it will search for a technicality to dismiss the case.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
It's going to be up to you to generate some new teammates as I am off to Kauai, Hawaii. Yeeeehhawwwww! I'll be checkin in everyday maybe quite often we'll see how it goes. The little woman and I have this really cool place that we go to every year. Basically we sit around our Cabana and do nothing but read, internet, or whatever. Very relaxing. Flight leaves at 7:45AM so I gotta get movin. I'll check in upon arrival to our Cabana. I'll post pix, this place is absolutely amazing. Talk to you soon. Aloha
Consistency is the final refuge of the unimaginative