Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 4/15/2001 3:22:58 AM EST
Visit [url]www.2ndlawlib.org/other/other/senrpt/senrpt.html
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 6:53:06 AM EST
The best part: The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. To bad this was written back in '82. Seems to have been mostly forgotten since Bush sr. and the Klintonites took control. Thanks for the link.
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 7:54:10 AM EST
Thankyou! I will be presenting this to the judge at my hearing Tuesday.
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 8:25:43 AM EST
NO, the best part by far is the the fact that Teddy the red nosed reindeer Kennedy and a few other notable liberals signed off on the report as part of the Senate committee that authored it. BTW, the Honorable Judge Cummings "Emerson" findings were remarkable similar to what is contained in this report. Ray
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 9:47:30 AM EST
apparently, those who wrote earlier posts did not read the other viewpoints that were given along with the report noted above. Unfortunately, they present compelling arguments as well. Previous rulings against the 2nd are often quite vague, insinuating that these courts were not even certain that their rulings would hold up. The SCROTUS decision on the "Miller" case seems mostly to hold that the defendant had poor counsel that presented a poor case. I may be wrong as I am uncertain of the exact details of the case but am aware of the courts findings. Clearly, a high profile case with some high-powered attorneys and substantial financial support are required to re-assert the 2nd amendment. This should be the main goal of NRA, GOA,etc. instead of paying off corrupt politicians. The Emerson case encompasses only a tangential element of the RKBA's and unless the SCROTUS elects to make a widely sweeping decision to support the 2nd(extremely unlikely) it will have a small effect on the RKBA even if "we the people" win.
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 1:09:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/15/2001 5:07:49 PM EST by andreusan]
You see guys, besides stirring up the s___ some, I can bring you a little history, to feed your mind, provoke thought, and get Sparky315 little ___s in a knot too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 3:34:19 PM EST
You mean, besides being a moron.
Link Posted: 4/15/2001 4:48:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sparky315: You mean, besides being a moron.
View Quote
YOU CYBER PUNK, GO GIVE SOMEONE ELSE SOME KEYBOARD, IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 4/16/2001 2:41:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By dr jarhead: apparently, those who wrote earlier posts did not read the other viewpoints that were given along with the report noted above. Unfortunately, they present compelling arguments as well. Previous rulings against the 2nd are often quite vague, insinuating that these courts were not even certain that their rulings would hold up. The SCROTUS decision on the "Miller" case seems mostly to hold that the defendant had poor counsel that presented a poor case. I may be wrong as I am uncertain of the exact details of the case but am aware of the courts findings. Clearly, a high profile case with some high-powered attorneys and substantial financial support are required to re-assert the 2nd amendment. This should be the main goal of NRA, GOA,etc. instead of paying off corrupt politicians. The Emerson case encompasses only a tangential element of the RKBA's and unless the SCROTUS elects to make a widely sweeping decision to support the 2nd(extremely unlikely) it will have a small effect on the RKBA even if "we the people" win.
View Quote
When you get the chance, look up (Perpich Gov. of Minnesota vs. DOD US SUPREME COURT 1990) it clearly defines who is the militia, and according to their decision, those who are not members of the reg. U.S. military forces, the national guard, reserves, defense force, state guard, are state militia/reserve militia who have private arms, not public!!!
Link Posted: 4/16/2001 8:30:13 AM EST
I appreciate the case noted as well as who is militia, andreusan. You are preaching to the choir. One of the major arguments used by the dissenting opinions in the link you originally posted is that none of our rights is absolute, including the RKBA. This is also the argument used in many pertinent court cases over the years. This is why I have become such a staunch supporter of all of our rights on this board. Once again: If we are willing to infringe upon the rights of others who have unpopular beliefs or habits the rights of the rest of us are in jeopardy when what we do is no longer PC. This is the reason for a constitution in the first place. It prevents knee-jerk political response to crises or tragedies that would allow the majority to infringe upon the rights of the minority.
Link Posted: 4/16/2001 8:49:53 AM EST
If you read below the apendix and bibliography, you'll notice a report on enforcement of federal gun laws, and that is a must read for everyone. Here's an excerpt: [i]These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States. It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property.(p.23) It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law. The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover, BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in the months following the announcement of their new "priorities", the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.[/i]
Link Posted: 4/16/2001 11:10:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By critter_FR: If you read below the apendix and bibliography, you'll notice a report on enforcement of federal gun laws, and that is a must read for everyone. Here's an excerpt: [i]These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Subcommittee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States. It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens. It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably searching and seizing private property.(p.23) It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens without regard for their right to due process of law. The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons illegally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documentation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover, BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in the months following the announcement of their new "priorities", the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.[/i]
View Quote
Yes, my fellow Americans, I presented this so it can be picked apart like above!!!!
Top Top