Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/10/2002 7:07:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 7:09:14 AM EDT by imposter]
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=8&cid=578&u=/nm/20020610/ts_nm/court_guns_dc_1[/url]
The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional. The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:36:08 AM EDT
Oh yeah...ashcroft says something and you guys cheer....now we see that it is just like bush saying "i will sign this but it is unconstitutional and it will be vetoed" John will say something for votes and the supremes will ignore him.....
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:37:27 AM EDT
So much for a "conservative" court agreeing with the founding fathers.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:05:52 AM EDT
Now hold on. I read the Yahoo news blurb. It's not clear the supreme court rejected the arguments at all. It may have been rejected because Emerson's appeal was not ripe yet. Does anyone have a copy of the actual denial of cert? Or a link?
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:12:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: Now hold on. I read the Yahoo news blurb. It's not clear the supreme court rejected the arguments at all. It may have been rejected because Emerson's appeal was not ripe yet. Does anyone have a copy of the actual denial of cert? Or a link?
View Quote
I concur.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:15:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 8:24:49 AM EDT by imposter]
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: It's not clear the supreme court rejected the arguments at all. It may have been rejected because Emerson's appeal was not ripe yet. Does anyone have a copy of the actual denial of cert? Or a link?
View Quote
[url]http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/061002.ZOR.html[/url]
01-8272 HANEY, JOHN L. V. UNITED STATES .. 01-8780 EMERSON, TIMOTHY J. V. UNITED STATES .. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
View Quote
It is really not surprising. Until one of the appellate courts actually invalidates a statute, the issue will never make it to the Supreme Court. And so far, although the 5th Circuit and Ashcroaft have made friendly noises, they have not actually done anything.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:55:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen: It may have been rejected because Emerson's appeal was not ripe yet.
View Quote
it smells pretty ripe to me. Until scotus takes up a challenge the 2nd is a moot issue because it means what the gov't says it means. i think the gov't is being very careful to keep a challenge from happening, and GW and his band of merry men are fighting against the Second almost as energetically as the brady bunch and their ilk.
Top Top