warpedskydiver 0 #26 March 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteCan someone please define for me the term "gun nut?" When you automatically turn political races into single-issue events, with the second amendment being the single issue. When you think the second amendment is the most important one When seeing certain bylines on posts makes your little heart go pitter-pat If you think that wish that gun buyers would just be truthful about their mental and criminal status is realistic then you might be a gun nut (apologies to the much wittier Jeff Foxworthy) Wendy W. Some of us view positions on the second as being extremely important. Just because we like, or enjoy owning, using, or collecting firearms, does not mean we don't consider all others as important. Because the second amendment is so polarizing, and unpopular to some folks, it provides us with some insight as to how all our other rights are actually going to be viewed. Some are not for privacy, nor the right against illegal search and seizure. Some are not for free speach, or the right to assemble. Some are not for any right that they themselves are uncomfortable with trusting others with. Some are for all rights for themselves, but none for others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #27 March 19, 2008 Quote then you might be a gun nut (apologies to the much wittier Jeff Foxworthy) Wendy W. Hello Wendy. I thought for sure I was a gun nut, but not based on those qualifications. How would you characterize someone who just wants to be able to carry or keep a weapon in their home in DC (or whatever major city) just in case someone does threaten their life - or that of their family? Can I at least be a gun lunatic? Is there room for someone who just wants #2 left alone?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 March 19, 2008 Quote"What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city. I think this is an important hint. Here is my prediction: The SCOTUS will probably balk at a grand pronouncement about the whether people have an unfettered right to private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." The district of Columbia, and other localities, would then be free to draft a statute that provides exceptions to the ban, but said exceptions being incapable of compliance for the general population, thus being not a facial ban, but a ban nonetheless. The courts would then consider these cases at various times in the future. Edited to add: Thomas will draft a separate concurrence stating that now should be the time for the SCOTUS to get some balls and make a ruling that sets the course one way or another. Thomas has already commented in his concurrence in Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997) when he wrote, QuoteThe Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. [n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. [n.2] As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #29 March 19, 2008 Quote[The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad."Quote I so hope you are correct. I don't see how the court could find any other way. Quote The district of Columbia, and other localities, would then be free to draft a statute that provides exceptions to the ban, but said exceptions being incapable of compliance for the general population, thus being not a facial ban, but a ban nonetheless. Quote And then more money will have to be wasted to overturn that one. Freedom sure isn't free. You just shouldn't have to fight your own countrymen for it.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #30 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe SCOTUS will probably balk at a grand pronouncement about the whether people have an unfettered right to private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." Thanks for the analysis and reference. I made my 'prediction' on the case back in December: The strict interpretationalists (e.g., Justices Scalia & Thomas) will look to the 2nd Amendment ... but in the numbers game to get a majority, it will take those who don't adhere to strict interpretationalism (e.g., Justices Kennedy & Breyer) who are likely (imo) to argue unilateral laws are an "undo burden" and argue from privacy rights. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #31 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #32 March 19, 2008 Hey. That's what it is about. Laws that push the limits. They are like children. They'll keep pushing the limits until they get pushed back, then they'll push some more. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #33 March 19, 2008 All of the SCOTUS Justices are no doubt competent. But I will add that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito seem to be more versed in the vernacular of the day (1790s) and more well read on the founding fathers of our country, and understanding of their intent.Justice Scalia is one damn fine Jurist, scholar and giant of a man.He was very impressive, and along with Roberts and Thomas, he truly showed that both sides of this matter are woefully inadequate to argue their cases.Justice Scalia would certainly have hit this one out of the park. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #34 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe strict interpretationalists (e.g., Justices Scalia & Thomas) will look to the 2nd Amendment ... but in the numbers game to get a majority, it will take those who don't adhere to strict interpretationalism (e.g., Justices Kennedy & Breyer) who are likely (imo) to argue unilateral laws are an "undo burden" and argue from privacy rights. This creates an interesting dilemma for all of these justices. Is it a personal freedom like speech or privacy? If so, then Ginsberg and Breyer and Stevens will be for the private possession of handguns. I can't see that happening. Or, what about those who have a recent history of enforcing the power of the governments to limit personal freedoms for "legitimate" governmental purposes? You'd think that those who favor such things like greater leeway for 4th Amendment searches and seizures, and denial of habeus corpus, etc., for detainees, would find that there is a legitimate governmental purpose for banning handguns. Strict constructionists versus "living breathing" interpretationists would be highly torn. Trust me - you aren't going to find any one on the court who does not argue strict constructionism. I DO expect the majority and dissent to make arguments about what the founding fathers meant. Without stare decisis to worry about, they can make their own interpretations. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TankBuster 0 #35 March 19, 2008 Just a thought - I wonder if Mayor Adrian Fenty gets to walk around DC with an armed bodyguard? I'll answer it. Yes, he does. Hmmm. Does that strike anyone as odd?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #36 March 19, 2008 Good to see you leaving yourself some wiggle room on this one counselor. As I said months ago, no matter what side a person is on and no matter which way this goes it's going to be "interesting."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #37 March 19, 2008 QuoteGood to see you leaving yourself some wiggle room on this one counselor. I need some. My ass is getting fat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crotalus01 0 #38 March 19, 2008 Quote Quote The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... I can only hope. The MG ban is ridiculous, Why exactly is it that I can own an M16 made in April 86 and not own one made in January 08? Whats the damn difference? It sure would suck big time for those who currently own MGs as the prices would go through the basement overnight. Imagine you paid $15,000 for a full auto AK and now its only worth a couple of thousand... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #39 March 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... I can only hope. The MG ban is ridiculous, Why exactly is it that I can own an M16 made in April 86 and not own one made in January 08? Whats the damn difference? It sure would suck big time for those who currently own MGs as the prices would go through the basement overnight. Imagine you paid $15,000 for a full auto AK and now its only worth a couple of thousand... What the government gives it can take away"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #40 March 20, 2008 More like bought it in 1980 for a couple grand and it's now worth $15K. People can still sell them but they (actually just the lower) had to have been made and registered by that date. There's a fixed supply of parts/guns, and prices are crazy. Anyway, in 1975 DC passed a law that banned possession handguns, MG's, and "high-capacity semi-automatic firearms" that were not registered before 1976. Sounds just like the MG law to me. I was just speculating on the effects of an ruling against DC. If they ruling somehow is that the "registered prior to..." is unconstitutional, it could put the Fed MG "ban" at risk of being overturnedNothing will happen quickly. Our firearms rights have been sliced away in tiny slivers since 1934 (waste-of-text NFA), and it could take just as long to get 'em back, that is, if we ever do. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #41 March 20, 2008 A response to an email to Alan Gura. I was not the one who emailed him, but I thought I would share this with you. QuoteThe solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way -- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer -- that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) -- I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn't any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process. I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very.... interesting.... ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts. I don't need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it's not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year's MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can't get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them. You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change." Thanks, Alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #42 March 20, 2008 Quote You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change."[/url] That’s a great recommendation. Of all the arguments put forth on this list that I’ve read over the last few years in the gun threads, the most effective came from [Rookie120]. He posted a link to a video last fall (?) that featured a calm, non-condescending, non-belittling, reasonably-dressed (i.e., didn’t look like a proverbial poster child for the ‘Michigan militia’), former police-officer from California (IIRC) who demonstrated visually how difficult (one might assert meaningless) categorizing guns as “assault weapons” based on visual appearance is. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #43 March 20, 2008 Impressive email. Yeah, Gura caught some criticism over that, and I don't think it was deserved. His only obligation is to his clients, and arguing outside of the question the SC agreed to examine could jeopardize the case. The NFA, GCA, MG "ban", etc. are way out of scope. It's easy to feel like he's representing "us", but he isn't. Like Nerdgirl said, the "take someone shooting" comment was really good. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #44 March 20, 2008 This is the response of a lawyer. Most people don't understand these things. I have clients who say after a hearing, "Why didn't you talk about [X] and [Y]?" And I must respond, "Because we are here about [A]. Those are other issues." Lawyers really have to walk a fine line - a gossamer thread. You find the argument that you can win and not piss off the judge. If I have the choice of pissing off the judge and not get the relief or pissing off the client and getting the relief, I'll piss off the client. Believe me - it is fucking difficult to exercise restraint. But restraint often comes across as credibility. I'll argue those points that I truly believe in. I don't need to find twisted logic to explain the point - my mind and my heart are in agreement. He is 100 percent correct. You have to look at what you can expect the court to give. These are not jurors who can be swayed by clever theatrics. These are the best judges in the land, and an attorney without credibility will destroy a credible case before them. The judges think, "THis guy's off his rocker." And then doubt creeps in on every angle. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dannydan 5 #45 March 24, 2008 "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private individuals will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard Contemplations, 1902 YEP! No different than BIG ROSIE sucker punching Tom Sellack (after a deal before the show) about her not bringing uP the subject at hand of the 2A and "guns"... And then a few months later reports of her "armed bodygaurd" started trickling about in print and on air!!! Which kinda cost her a wee little bit in the softie so many had thought of her ass..... Look what happened to KMart after that and then when they also quit selling ammo!!! I am not saying that all of the above put KMart under. Some have said recently that "boycotts dont work", I think in this case it didnt help Leverne and Rosie or Troy Mich....and there are alot of "GUN NUTZ" in Mi. SCOTUS will grant the individual right, because they know that the NWO is alive and well, and will come in (in due time) and lay the WORLD law down banning individual rightS as we know them! seez yaz on da otter~side! "get your house in order" but until then,....KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY! peace :DD "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson however, if anyone thinks that We the People could resist the USMilitary that WE funded, then I have some oceanfront....yada yada yada! "Brother will betray brother to death, fathers will betray their own children, and children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be killed". Mttw 13:21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #46 March 25, 2008 Quote Look what happened to KMart after that and then when they also quit selling ammo!!! I am not saying that all of the above put KMart under. K-Mart was a sinking ship, unable to compete against Walmart and Target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Esquilax 0 #47 March 26, 2008 And no sign of Physics Professors on this thread...Perhaps conceding imminent defeat?Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #48 March 26, 2008 He was getting married. Cut the good professor some slack. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #49 March 26, 2008 He would claim victory no matter which way the court decides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nerdgirl 0 #30 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe SCOTUS will probably balk at a grand pronouncement about the whether people have an unfettered right to private possession of firearms. The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." Thanks for the analysis and reference. I made my 'prediction' on the case back in December: The strict interpretationalists (e.g., Justices Scalia & Thomas) will look to the 2nd Amendment ... but in the numbers game to get a majority, it will take those who don't adhere to strict interpretationalism (e.g., Justices Kennedy & Breyer) who are likely (imo) to argue unilateral laws are an "undo burden" and argue from privacy rights. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #31 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 March 19, 2008 Hey. That's what it is about. Laws that push the limits. They are like children. They'll keep pushing the limits until they get pushed back, then they'll push some more. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #33 March 19, 2008 All of the SCOTUS Justices are no doubt competent. But I will add that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito seem to be more versed in the vernacular of the day (1790s) and more well read on the founding fathers of our country, and understanding of their intent.Justice Scalia is one damn fine Jurist, scholar and giant of a man.He was very impressive, and along with Roberts and Thomas, he truly showed that both sides of this matter are woefully inadequate to argue their cases.Justice Scalia would certainly have hit this one out of the park. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 March 19, 2008 QuoteThe strict interpretationalists (e.g., Justices Scalia & Thomas) will look to the 2nd Amendment ... but in the numbers game to get a majority, it will take those who don't adhere to strict interpretationalism (e.g., Justices Kennedy & Breyer) who are likely (imo) to argue unilateral laws are an "undo burden" and argue from privacy rights. This creates an interesting dilemma for all of these justices. Is it a personal freedom like speech or privacy? If so, then Ginsberg and Breyer and Stevens will be for the private possession of handguns. I can't see that happening. Or, what about those who have a recent history of enforcing the power of the governments to limit personal freedoms for "legitimate" governmental purposes? You'd think that those who favor such things like greater leeway for 4th Amendment searches and seizures, and denial of habeus corpus, etc., for detainees, would find that there is a legitimate governmental purpose for banning handguns. Strict constructionists versus "living breathing" interpretationists would be highly torn. Trust me - you aren't going to find any one on the court who does not argue strict constructionism. I DO expect the majority and dissent to make arguments about what the founding fathers meant. Without stare decisis to worry about, they can make their own interpretations. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #35 March 19, 2008 Just a thought - I wonder if Mayor Adrian Fenty gets to walk around DC with an armed bodyguard? I'll answer it. Yes, he does. Hmmm. Does that strike anyone as odd?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 March 19, 2008 Good to see you leaving yourself some wiggle room on this one counselor. As I said months ago, no matter what side a person is on and no matter which way this goes it's going to be "interesting."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 March 19, 2008 QuoteGood to see you leaving yourself some wiggle room on this one counselor. I need some. My ass is getting fat. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #38 March 19, 2008 Quote Quote The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... I can only hope. The MG ban is ridiculous, Why exactly is it that I can own an M16 made in April 86 and not own one made in January 08? Whats the damn difference? It sure would suck big time for those who currently own MGs as the prices would go through the basement overnight. Imagine you paid $15,000 for a full auto AK and now its only worth a couple of thousand... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 March 20, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The SCOTUS will probably find that there is an individual right subject to reasonable limitations placed on them by the government. the court will then find that the outright banning of all private possession of a handguns is "overbroad." That's my (uneducated) guess as well. A step in the right direction though.... I would think that the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA is "overbroad" as well: "....ban(s) the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986." The courts will be busy.... I can only hope. The MG ban is ridiculous, Why exactly is it that I can own an M16 made in April 86 and not own one made in January 08? Whats the damn difference? It sure would suck big time for those who currently own MGs as the prices would go through the basement overnight. Imagine you paid $15,000 for a full auto AK and now its only worth a couple of thousand... What the government gives it can take away"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #40 March 20, 2008 More like bought it in 1980 for a couple grand and it's now worth $15K. People can still sell them but they (actually just the lower) had to have been made and registered by that date. There's a fixed supply of parts/guns, and prices are crazy. Anyway, in 1975 DC passed a law that banned possession handguns, MG's, and "high-capacity semi-automatic firearms" that were not registered before 1976. Sounds just like the MG law to me. I was just speculating on the effects of an ruling against DC. If they ruling somehow is that the "registered prior to..." is unconstitutional, it could put the Fed MG "ban" at risk of being overturnedNothing will happen quickly. Our firearms rights have been sliced away in tiny slivers since 1934 (waste-of-text NFA), and it could take just as long to get 'em back, that is, if we ever do. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #41 March 20, 2008 A response to an email to Alan Gura. I was not the one who emailed him, but I thought I would share this with you. QuoteThe solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way -- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer -- that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) -- I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn't any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in the process. I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very.... interesting.... ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts. I don't need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it's not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year's MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can't get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them. You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change." Thanks, Alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #42 March 20, 2008 Quote You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change."[/url] That’s a great recommendation. Of all the arguments put forth on this list that I’ve read over the last few years in the gun threads, the most effective came from [Rookie120]. He posted a link to a video last fall (?) that featured a calm, non-condescending, non-belittling, reasonably-dressed (i.e., didn’t look like a proverbial poster child for the ‘Michigan militia’), former police-officer from California (IIRC) who demonstrated visually how difficult (one might assert meaningless) categorizing guns as “assault weapons” based on visual appearance is. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #43 March 20, 2008 Impressive email. Yeah, Gura caught some criticism over that, and I don't think it was deserved. His only obligation is to his clients, and arguing outside of the question the SC agreed to examine could jeopardize the case. The NFA, GCA, MG "ban", etc. are way out of scope. It's easy to feel like he's representing "us", but he isn't. Like Nerdgirl said, the "take someone shooting" comment was really good. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 March 20, 2008 This is the response of a lawyer. Most people don't understand these things. I have clients who say after a hearing, "Why didn't you talk about [X] and [Y]?" And I must respond, "Because we are here about [A]. Those are other issues." Lawyers really have to walk a fine line - a gossamer thread. You find the argument that you can win and not piss off the judge. If I have the choice of pissing off the judge and not get the relief or pissing off the client and getting the relief, I'll piss off the client. Believe me - it is fucking difficult to exercise restraint. But restraint often comes across as credibility. I'll argue those points that I truly believe in. I don't need to find twisted logic to explain the point - my mind and my heart are in agreement. He is 100 percent correct. You have to look at what you can expect the court to give. These are not jurors who can be swayed by clever theatrics. These are the best judges in the land, and an attorney without credibility will destroy a credible case before them. The judges think, "THis guy's off his rocker." And then doubt creeps in on every angle. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 5 #45 March 24, 2008 "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private individuals will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard Contemplations, 1902 YEP! No different than BIG ROSIE sucker punching Tom Sellack (after a deal before the show) about her not bringing uP the subject at hand of the 2A and "guns"... And then a few months later reports of her "armed bodygaurd" started trickling about in print and on air!!! Which kinda cost her a wee little bit in the softie so many had thought of her ass..... Look what happened to KMart after that and then when they also quit selling ammo!!! I am not saying that all of the above put KMart under. Some have said recently that "boycotts dont work", I think in this case it didnt help Leverne and Rosie or Troy Mich....and there are alot of "GUN NUTZ" in Mi. SCOTUS will grant the individual right, because they know that the NWO is alive and well, and will come in (in due time) and lay the WORLD law down banning individual rightS as we know them! seez yaz on da otter~side! "get your house in order" but until then,....KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY! peace :DD "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson however, if anyone thinks that We the People could resist the USMilitary that WE funded, then I have some oceanfront....yada yada yada! "Brother will betray brother to death, fathers will betray their own children, and children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be killed". Mttw 13:21 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 March 25, 2008 Quote Look what happened to KMart after that and then when they also quit selling ammo!!! I am not saying that all of the above put KMart under. K-Mart was a sinking ship, unable to compete against Walmart and Target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Esquilax 0 #47 March 26, 2008 And no sign of Physics Professors on this thread...Perhaps conceding imminent defeat?Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #48 March 26, 2008 He was getting married. Cut the good professor some slack. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #49 March 26, 2008 He would claim victory no matter which way the court decides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
