Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:19:24 PM EDT
All I see it is contested on Commerce Clause grounds.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:20:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:32:42 PM EDT by JBowles]
wow
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:21:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:32:53 PM EDT by JBowles]
Hugest
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:22:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:33:05 PM EDT by JBowles]
dupe
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:23:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:33:15 PM EDT by JBowles]
post
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:23:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:33:27 PM EDT by JBowles]
ever
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:24:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:33:41 PM EDT by JBowles]
woot
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:24:58 PM EDT
no and I believe at least part of it is not inpowered by the Commerce Clause (mear Posession and Intrastate manufacter/transfur)
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:01:19 PM EDT
Damm stop trying to get your post count up.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:15:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 10:20:33 PM EDT by A_Free_Man]
Yes, but the Supremes refused to hear the case.

Case involved J. D. Farmer, Hard Times Armory, in Georgia, a licensed mfg, who was trying to get the paperwork through to produce a machinegun. Stephen Halbrook was the attorney, if I remember correctly.

It was an interesting case, with interesting ramifications. And it was not a criminal case, but rather Farmer suing the govt. The way the case was set up, with Perpich and Miller as a precidents, they very well could, and should have won.

And for once, it was a gun case in which to rule FOR the Right to Keep and Bear Arms did not involve letting some vile criminal loose.

The case was Farmer vs. Higgens (who was head of ATF at the time).

www.healylaw.com/cases/farmer.htm

www.saf.org/LawReviews/Calhoun1.htm

elfie.org/~croaker/gunshy.html
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:24:09 PM EDT
How can the supresme court refuse to hear a case? That always seemed strange to me.

I don't care if i have to pull NO. 3,423,452,443,223 out of the damn machine...im going to wait to be heard.

that or my great-great-great-great grandson will get a letter in the rulling.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:31:40 PM EDT
The applicability of the 1986 ban to the commerce clause should be tested according to 9th and 10th Amendments.

The framers' intent was that congress have a definite area of legislation. Passing a law with the commerce clause as an excuse which exceeds that area of legislation should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:37:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
How can the supresme court refuse to hear a case? That always seemed strange to me.

I don't care if i have to pull NO. 3,423,452,443,223 out of the damn machine...im going to wait to be heard.

that or my great-great-great-great grandson will get a letter in the rulling.



The reasoning behind many cases is that SCOTUS judges know how their counterparts will look/rule on most issues, so why waste the time?

Also, many cases that get to SCOTUS are not worth their time (Why do you think it takes Death Row inmates so long to get zapped?)

Nothing would ever get done if SCOTUS did not have the ability to choose their docket.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:43:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SpecialOperator:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
How can the supresme court refuse to hear a case? That always seemed strange to me.

I don't care if i have to pull NO. 3,423,452,443,223 out of the damn machine...im going to wait to be heard.

that or my great-great-great-great grandson will get a letter in the rulling.



The reasoning behind many cases is that SCOTUS judges know how their counterparts will look/rule on most issues, so why waste the time?

Also, many cases that get to SCOTUS are not worth their time (Why do you think it takes Death Row inmates so long to get zapped?)

Nothing would ever get done if SCOTUS did not have the ability to choose their docket.



SOP is right even with Alito we are likely short one vote. We know where Souter, Ginsberg, Briar, and Kennedy are their socialists. You were relying on Stevens for a fifth vote??
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:59:44 PM EDT
The intersting thing about Farmer vs. Higgens is that at first the Supremes accepted the case. Then after reading it, and seeing there was only one way they could rule (FOR Farmer and thus voiding the '86 FOPA machine gun ban) they said they would not hear it.

Farmer actually won the case the first time in court. It was the federal govt who appealed, and later won in a higher court.

At the time it was widely reported, and even repeated now, that the Supreme Court ruled that "the 2nd Amendment does not give a person the right to own a machine gun." But that is factually wrong on several points.

(1) Farmer was trying to MANUFACTURE a machine gun for which he needed certain paperwork from ATF. His suit said those permits would be "under the authority of the government". Farmer was not an individual wanting to own a machine gun.

(2) SCOTUS didn't rule. They refused to hear the case.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 11:03:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
The intersting thing about Farmer vs. Higgens is that at first the Supremes accepted the case. Then after reading it, and seeing there was only one way they could rule (FOR Farmer and thus voiding the '86 FOPA machine gun ban) they said they would not hear it.

Farmer actually won the case the first time in court. It was the federal govt who appealed, and later won in a higher court.

At the time it was widely reported, and even repeated now, that the Supreme Court ruled that "the 2nd Amendment does not give a person the right to own a machine gun." But that is factually wrong on several points.

(1) Farmer was trying to MANUFACTURE a machine gun for which he needed certain paperwork from ATF. His suit said those permits would be "under the authority of the government". Farmer was not an individual wanting to own a machine gun.

(2) SCOTUS didn't rule. They refused to hear the case.



See my post directly above and apply to Miller(collectivists view) ruling as well.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:30:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 12:03:39 PM EDT



it'll never happen. it's a lose/lose situation for the courts and they won't touch it.


Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:05:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


it'll never happen. it's a lose/lose situation for the courts and they won't touch it.





One of these days they might have to.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:07:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


it'll never happen. it's a lose/lose situation for the courts and they won't touch it.





Didn't stop them from voting on the Emminent Domain.

It was a win\lose situation. And yet they lost.
Top Top