User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:14:22 AM EDT
[#1]
Going...  Are they asking about it right now? Can I catch it on CSPAN? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:15:01 AM EDT
[#2]
tag.
Not sure which thread dupe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:15:45 AM EDT
[#3]
feingold is a supporter of the individual interpretation????
roberts: conflict among circuits... won't answer seems to be very familiar with Miller |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:16:11 AM EDT
[#4]
On C-Span split screen. Interviewed by Feingold, a GUN GRABBER. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:16:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Sweet... Feingold is a believer in the individual right... I never would have believed it if I didn't hear it straight from his mouth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:18:36 AM EDT
[#6]
If he gets a big enough lead, he can probably steal third. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:19:56 AM EDT
[#7]
He fucking dodged the question. He (I think it was him, I have audio only) also said that sawed off shotguns didn't fit the militia aspect of the second.
 It seems that he agrees with the Miller decision.So if I remove 1" from my rifle, it no longer serves any usefull purpose as a militia weapon?  This is kind of pissing me off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:20:21 AM EDT
[#8]
It's amazing that the people of Wisconsin, with such a HUGE hunting tradition can vote for this guy. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:21:08 AM EDT
[#9]
So what did he say? Collectivists or individualist??????????????? Supporter or not?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:22:21 AM EDT
[#10]
No, he said that Miller didn't opine on a collective/individual interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:23:35 AM EDT
[#11]
i don't have a problem with him not saying much on the issue. if he does, the democrats will jump all over him. i want to SEE what he does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:24:52 AM EDT
[#12]
Uh uh, look at Pennsylvania and who we have for a Governer. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:02 AM EDT
[#13]
couldn't comment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Tell me about it!!! It's so infuriating. The guy is practically the pope here in WI. Just about everybody loves him, even a lot of the Republicans and other conservatives. I voted against him personally last fall, but that was an absolutely futile effort. He won by a landslide. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:26:48 AM EDT
[#15]
HUNTERS not gun owners
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:27:24 AM EDT
[#16]
OK. I think I came into it a tad too late. I wonder if I can get a transcript? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:27:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Hopefully, It's in our favour 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:30:19 AM EDT
[#18]
Fiengold changed some parts of his stance on the 2nd over the last couple years. We pounded on him constantly in the last year run up to the AWB sunset. His replies usually contained this or something along those lines. "I voted against the amendment because I believe that prohibiting certain types of weapons is problamatic. " though that exact quote came from a letter in regards to all the amendments that the dems were trying to add to the lawsuit pre-emption bill at the time. And why he voted agains tthe AWB amendment to that bill. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:32:53 AM EDT
[#19]
what the hell are you talking about? He sided with gun owners on the AWB, he voted against an amendment to the protection of lawful commerce in arms act that would have reinstated the AWB. see my above post. And he is against any other AWBs. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:33:46 AM EDT
[#20]
to sum up, Roberts knew the opinions of 5th and 9th circuits, and was pretty familiar with Miller.
interpret that however you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:34:30 AM EDT
[#21]
I din't think there were Dems like him. I wish all of the Repubs were more like him |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:36:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Feingold was for the AWB in '94 (I believe he sponsored it) but was against it in '04.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:37:11 AM EDT
[#23]
The problem with seeing what he does means it is too late, as he will already be on the supreme court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:38:22 AM EDT
[#24]
Educate me here. Miller was the ruling on sawed off shotguns and military hardware in civilian hands right? What was short version of the 2 rulings I assume they conflict. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:38:35 AM EDT
[#25]
We'll take Feingold here in Ohio and you can have Dewine...
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:39:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Yes, but didn't he vote against the gun liability law this year? He voted for it last year, but then against it this year. I'm still skeptical of what he truly believes, but he is certainly a LOT better than most D senators. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:41:02 AM EDT
[#27]
He can steal home if he wants...the Dems won't but up much of a fight over Roberts. The big fight will be over the next appointment... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:41:40 AM EDT
[#28]
The Miller ruling in 1934 was the beginning of the NFA, IIRC. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:42:45 AM EDT
[#29]
Miller in a nutshell: The court sees no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun is a valid tool for use by the militia to ensure a free state. There was no evidence because Miller's side didn't even bother to show up for the hearing. nevermind that sawed-off shotguns were used to great effect in WW-I. The 9th ruled that the 2nd was a collective right. The 5th ruled it was an individual right. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:42:49 AM EDT
[#30]
Yup that is true, and you know why, because Wisconsin gun owners got on his ass about the issue and made him see how increadibly stupid the whole AWB was. When I wrote him a letter regarding the MG ban of 86, after reading his responce to the AWB and amendments he answered in basicly the same way, so with enough pressure, maybe, just maybe we could have a "friend" in the cause of having the 86ban replealed. Fiengold believe it or not does listen to those of us that he represents, at least on some issues. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:45:51 AM EDT
[#31]
So is their a possibility of removal of the NFA, all be it unlikely. Did Roberts hint at anything? What were the 5th and 9th opinions and which needs ot og for our benefit. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2005 11:46:02 AM EDT
[#32]
No he never voted for it IIRC he has always been against it. But part of that is that his understanding of it wasn't the greatest. He seemed to think it a blanket immunity basicly. I;ve writen him and still continue to do so about the liability law. We just have to keep banging away and letting him know what we think about 2A issues. He does listen. Not to many people that I know of really cared to much about what happened with the protection of lawful commerce in arms act in this state, well beside those of us that clal this site our home on the internet. |
|||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
