User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:20:29 PM EDT
[#1]
wow
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:21:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Hugest
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:22:28 PM EDT
[#3]
dupe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:23:27 PM EDT
[#4]
post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:23:57 PM EDT
[#5]
ever
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:24:28 PM EDT
[#6]
woot
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:24:58 PM EDT
[#7]
no and I believe at least part of it is not inpowered by the Commerce Clause (mear Posession and Intrastate manufacter/transfur)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:01:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Damm stop trying to get your post count up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:15:22 PM EDT
[#9]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:24:09 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:31:40 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:37:34 PM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:43:06 PM EDT
[#13]
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??  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:59:44 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:03:16 PM EDT
[#15]
See my post directly above and apply to Miller(collectivists view) ruling as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 11:30:28 AM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 12:03:39 PM EDT
[#17]
it'll never happen. it's a lose/lose situation for the courts and they won't touch it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:05:40 PM EDT
[#18]
One of these days they might have to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:07:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Didn't stop them from voting on the Emminent Domain. It was a win\lose situation. And yet they lost. |
|
|
|
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.
