I was talking to an attorney friend of mine that is also an NRA instructor and gun lover.  I asked her, yes her, how any of these gun laws can stand since they are obvious violations of the 2nd amendment.

Her response was interesting, she said that everytime these issues are brought up in lower courts the anti gun people lose and the cases never make it to the supreme court.

The antis know that they can't let any of these cases go before the supreme court since they know they will lose since the 2nd is SO clear.  ESPECIALLY concidering the current Supreme court.

She also said it would probably cost you about $500,000 to fight this thing to the Supreme court.  I'm sure you could get some NRA and other funding though.

She said the first step is to be charged with a violation and then start the fight.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that no one has fought the good fight yet.

According to the 2nd amendment we can lawfully own any full auto, and add any feature we want especially military type weapons.  As I'm sure you are well aware, ANY, limitations is unconsitutional.

The antis will never let you take it to the Supreme Court because they know they will get the asses handed to them.

Anyone that is willing to start this good fight I will openly support them with funds and my time.  Funds I dont have much of but time I can help you with.

The Emmerson case, now awaiting a ruling in Federal appeals court, may be the one that makes it to the Supreme Court for a once-and-for-all ruling on whether the 2nd guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Are they accepting funds or other donations????
If they havea website I would like to know.  Thanks.
[sniper]

In the PRNJ we have the assault rifle ban. It was tried in Monmouth County Superior Court. The arguement was a MAK 90 was not an AK 47 there fore not banned.  They won but the AG would not take it to the State Supreme Court as now the decision is only binding in that one county.
We have slowly gained some back as AR's are legal, M1A, even the Thompson Semi.

In the PRNJ we have the assault rifle ban. It was tried in Monmouth County Superior Court. The arguement was a MAK 90 was not an AK 47 there fore not banned.  They won but the AG would not take it to the State Supreme Court as now the decision is only binding in that one county.
We have slowly gained some back as AR's are legal, M1A, even the Thompson Semi.

Considering that U.S. v. Emerson has been sitting in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for [red]over a year[/red] since the oral arguments were heard, and "the 2nd is SO clear" (especially as Judge Cummings wrote in his decision on Emerson that PUT it in the 5th Circuit), I cannot help but wonder what the delay is.  

Are the judges worried about acutally having to uphold the law?

That pisses me off.  We need to fight fire with fire.  Everyone denied for ANYTHING needs to sue.

These laws are unconstitutional and the antis can't let it go to the Supreme court so you will win.

My understanding is they HAVE to take it if it is a constitutional case.  That is why the antis lose them on the lower levels so it never gets to the Supreme court.

If only I had $1Billion, the best lawyers and the hole 9 yards.

Anyone know a billionare?

I have advocated the weapons violation, arrest, trial, appeal, and SCOTUS review several times, esp. after someone say they are gonna start shooting.....if they try to take my gun......

There are 2 reasons it probably won't happen

1) The anti's are afraid if the SCOTUS reviews a case and rules on the 2nd Amendment SCOTUS will uphold RKBA.

2) The RKBA crowd is afraid if the SCOTUS reviews a case and rules oin the 2nd Amendment SCOTUS will no find a RKBA for the average citizen. (interpratation of militia may be the key, infringed may be another word that ends up having a wacky SCOTUS definition)

3) I personally think that the SCOTUS is reluctant to rule on the issue. I think it would cause a reaction that makes Roe v. Wade look like a minor issue.

GeoffM24: SCOTUS gets to decide if it will hear an appeal. The only time they MUST take a case is if the SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction, as listed in the Constitution.

First, I am civil, not criminal, so take this for what its worth.
It seems like the courts of appeal (the level between the federal trial courts and the supreme court) do rule on 2nd issues, and find things like "its a collective, not an individual right" and "it is not an absolute right, so its not enforcable" and "the 2nd does not apply to the states via the 14th amendment, because it's not a real right" and "it's a state right". Given those holdings, no matter how inconsistant they are with other constitutional rights, I think that there now is solid anti-2nd rulings in most circuits.
The thing the antis might fear is what the current supreme court might do.
The big three (R,S,T) will likely vote pro second. O'Connor will if the chemo has worn off enough for her to not be a liberal that week. (She is from a heavy gun state, and usually likes rights even if they aren't PC).
That means the side of good only has to pick up one vote.

Why am I writing this now? Cause the new 9-620 of the UCC sucks booty to figure out, and so I am resting my mind with easy and fun SC guesses.  ;-)

I heard billionaire Andrew Mckelvey has been donating money to a prominent republican's gun owner program. Maybe he could help.