SHELLY PARKER, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
I read this Sunday evening (loser, I know) and found it damn interesting. We have gone over this debate several time here with no real answer. In the next few days, we will have an answer (unless they skirt the question, the jerks). So I figured I'd see if I could shed some light on it before the decision. A summary of the 60 page analysis and probably a precursor to the SCOTUS decision (which will also probably not tackle the details).
The law:
DC has banned all handguns for all person but-for Police Officers, on-duty military personnel, and and retired Police Officers by permit. Also, any firearm in DC must be disassembled and unarmed. Both provisions apply to transport, home, and public in all instances.
The Plaintiffs: (page 4 as linked above, too lazy to cite correctly on the internets)
Various persons denied permits to have firearms - including an active duty Federal Security guard who carries a firearm at work in DC, a man who wishes to have a registered shotgun in his home without having to render it non-functioning, and a woman wanting a handgun for self defense.
Standing is by virtue of the security guard - (page 5) denial of his application gives rise to a cause of action on the 2nd Amendment.
At Issue:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Procedural Standing: (page 1-2)
Dismissed at the district level - held: Second Amendment does not provide an individual right (per 9th Circuit Largely).
Arguments:
Appellants (page 13) - the first clause is prefatory and the second clause is functional. Therefor, it is an individual right with the former serving only as a "civic purpose" statement and not qualifying the right. "They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms." (Hence the Supreme Court could have a narrow opinion and skirt the issues).
D.C.: (13)
The prefatory clause outlines the sole purpose of the Amendment - to guarantee the rights of the States to raise militias. Furthermore, it only guarantees those rights to such an extent as the State Militias existed at the time of the Framing, which no longer exist. In Oral arguments it was argued that DC could outright ban all firearms. "In short, we take the District's position to be that the Second Amendment is a dead letter." (The National Guard is a Federal Army unit and not truely state controlled, thanks to the Civil War)
Held:
Overturned. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right of The People to bear arms. The hang gun ban and the disabled firearm provisions are struck.
Court's Analysis:
1. Right of the People - (18)
The framers were competent enough to have written "Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias" if that was their sole intention. Likewise, they chose to use the term "the People," which is universally accepted as meaning an "individual protection against intrusion" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments (as applicable). Furthermore, the 10th specifies rights reserved to "the States" - indicating the ability to use differentiating language if they chose.
Second (page 20), the right to bear arms pre-existed the constitution. The wording "preserves" the right as opposed to the government creating the right. Thus, the government can not infringe upon that right.
Since it was preserving a right, the Founders saw value in the existing right. The usage of firearms in the day was for hunting, self defense, and "if absolutely necessary, to assist in the overthrow of a tyrannical government." All causes for which firearms can be useful in this day.
And finally (p. 23), every provision on the Bill of Rights - but for the 10th, which specifically indicates the States, provides for an individual right. The 2nd Amendment would be an "aberration" if viewed in any other light.
2. Definitions - (24)
The Circuit goes on to pound the definition of the words "bear" and "keep" to death. Deciding that they are inherently ambiguous and general terms of the day. Bear meaning essentially to "hold or carry" and "keep" referring to possession (as opposed to "upkeep" as in maintenance of an army).
They then go over weather a "regulated militia" is synonymous with a State's organized civilian fighting force or has a broader meaning (page 28). The Circuit concludes that by historic statutes one was required to be "enrolled" in the militia - not trained or active, essentially to make themselves available as a "raw material for a fighting force." All males over the age of 18 are required to enroll in the US Selective Service - thus, but historical standards all males are enrolled in a "well regulated militia." The court narrows this view somewhat, but firmly rejects the narrow interpretation of militia.
To finish of militia - the Circuit notes that the militias were independently required to arm themselves and be regulated and organized by the States. After enrolling (selective service) men were required to arm themselves in the event they should be organized. Participation was widespread and mandatory, ie. NOT the National Guard. Preserving the rights of masses to hold firearms was the best way to ensure an active pool for military service on call.
3. Civic Purpose - (page 37 of the opinion, I should have been citing, sorry)
The purpose of the perfunctory clause was quell unease about a standing Federal army. At the Assembly neither side argued that the government had the power to disarm the people - they argued about weather the Federal Government should be allowed to have a standing army.
4. Limitations (45)
Distinguishing en mass the difference between private purpose and militia purpose firearms a "Silly Exercise." However, the court was not hostile to the
Miller's holding that some restrictions would be acceptable. Noting that militia men of the era did not keep cannons at home. Trying to distinguish between personal and military use of each rifle is impractical.
quote:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
Page 46.
5. What can be banned? (page 51)
Militia men of the time were required to have ""a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder . . . ." Essentially be prepared as a soldier with the outfitting of a riflemen. More than "mere antiques to hang above the mantle" but short of artillery (artillery men had to bring ancillary items).
The Circuit followed a 2 pronged test:
1) "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," (the arms needed to serve)
2) Of the kind personally owned and "of the kind in common use at the time."
HOWEVER, at the time common law banned firearms from entire classes of people. Drunkards, felons, idiots, etc. Furthermore, weapons were not allowed in many government buildings, churches, etc. Thus, restrictions for public wellbeing are allowed.
The court does not try to tackle the details of what and when restrictions can be placed (thanks for that court). And I'll spare you the dissent...
- - -
So, let me get this straight, if an armed maniac invaded my home in the middle of the night, I couldn't defend myself with a handgun and I'd have to assemble and load my rifle before I could defend myself. What a load of ****.
Here is a great example of someone writing an article that has not read the DC Circuit opinion nor even a summary of it:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/06/imminent_supreme_court_2nd_ame.html#post
No idea what he is talking about in "well regulated militia," what weapons he is walking about, what checks are currently in place, what gun "advocates want" nor for that matter what the point of the Constitution is.
quote:
es, I'd hate to see the wishes of the citizens of DC, Chicago and other municipalities that have chosen to ban handguns be overruled by an archaic and vague one-sentence Amendment.
Ah yes, loathe the day when the Constitution usurps local governments. When the Constitution can guarantee citizens rights over Chicago, we are certainly all screwed. Not too mention the archaic "rights" that are granted, clearly we can ignore most of those and move on after 200 years!
I propose a ban on religion in Oklahoma, an archaic institution responsible for much distress over the years... certainly no longer worthy of protection regardless of what some old chunk of parchment says.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Here is a great example of someone writing an article that has not read the DC Circuit opinion nor even a summary of it:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/06/imminent_supreme_court_2nd_ame.html#post
No idea what he is talking about in "well regulated militia," what weapons he is walking about, what checks are currently in place, what gun "advocates want" nor for that matter what the point of the Constitution is.
quote:
es, I'd hate to see the wishes of the citizens of DC, Chicago and other municipalities that have chosen to ban handguns be overruled by an archaic and vague one-sentence Amendment.
Ah yes, loathe the day when the Constitution usurps local governments. When the Constitution can guarantee citizens rights over Chicago, we are certainly all screwed. Not too mention the archaic "rights" that are granted, clearly we can ignore most of those and move on after 200 years!
I propose a ban on religion in Oklahoma, an archaic institution responsible for much distress over the years... certainly no longer worthy of protection regardless of what some old chunk of parchment says.
LOL Fodder. Is this the tradeoff? Because no religion means no devil rituals which I consider a personal attack.[:o)]
Just forcing an issue. Most people would see the fault in removing protection for that right, even if they agree with the sentiment. But for some reason, the trade off of rights for a sense of security has become popular lately.
Rumor mill has the ruling out tomorrow with Scalia writing the majority opinion. Expect many concurring opinions, several dissents, and perhaps a plurality if they paint with a broad brush. The latest I heard is the case is being delayed to reword the Scalia opinion to get a firm majority or even a unanimous decision, with concurring opinions expanding the opinion.
We shall see... it's been about 80 years in coming.
Supreme Court strikes down DC ban on handguns.
Blurb:
http://www.scotusblog.com/
Opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
[edit]157 pages!!![/edit]
quote:
we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
Strike the complete ban of firearms, but allows regulation of firearms exclusively for military purposes.
quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.
More when I can read it.
Here's the WaPo story if anyone wants it in layman's terms [;)]:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html?referrer=email
This is a landmark. First conclusive ruling on Amend II since ratified in 1791.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the WaPo story if anyone wants it in layman's terms [;)]:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html?referrer=email
This is a landmark. First conclusive ruling on Amend II since ratified in 1791.
Lock and Load!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the WaPo story if anyone wants it in layman's terms [;)]:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html?referrer=email
This is a landmark. First conclusive ruling on Amend II since ratified in 1791.
Lock and Load!
[:)]
And don't shoot yourself in the foot. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Just forcing an issue. Most people would see the fault in removing protection for that right, even if they agree with the sentiment. But for some reason, the trade off of rights for a sense of security has become popular lately.
Rumor mill has the ruling out tomorrow with Scalia writing the majority opinion. Expect many concurring opinions, several dissents, and perhaps a plurality if they paint with a broad brush. The latest I heard is the case is being delayed to reword the Scalia opinion to get a firm majority or even a unanimous decision, with concurring opinions expanding the opinion.
We shall see... it's been about 80 years in coming.
This is why we need more progressives on the Supreme Court.
What is why we need more progressives? That statement made no sense when related to the quote you included. Are you implying that we should have more Justices trading freedom for the illusion of security, that's a pretty odd way of stating it and a worse way of making the point.
Meanwhile, by "progressive" you mean liberal. Why not just say what you mean? Progressive simply means favoring change - well, this court changed the DC law today. How very progressive. If you mean striving for betterment, then it is an open statement of opinion and basically worthless (could mean wanting ultra religious judges or transsexual ecologists).
Do you have anything to say about the actual decision, like maybe why you logically or jurisprudentially oppose it? Or just a quip and more on?
What did you expect from the Supreme Republican Court?
There are numerable reasons for a progressive court. Just this past week they let the oil industry off the hook for a disaster they should have been held accountable. They gave us Bushco.....the list goes on.
This decision will set cities back when the war on terrorism comes to our streets ... and this terror will not be the fight by religious fanatics.
so much for justice...
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
This decision will set cities back when the war on terrorism comes to our streets ... and this terror will not be the fight by religious fanatics.
so much for justice...
Oh, horsesh*t.
Lord knows that I've been a critic of Justice Scalia before. But his majority opinion in this matter is well-thought-out and prudent. It basically says that Americans do have a right to carry arms, but the right is not absolute. In other words, licensing of guns and other common-sense regulations do NOT violate the Second Amendment. I find it impossible to quibble with that reasoning.
And even though I've never hunted, I'm at heart a country boy and have known hundreds of hunters in my lifetime. (Hunters also are among the biggest environmentalists, but that's another topic.) I find it silly to have such onerous gun regulations that a fellow can't even go dove-hunting on the weekends.
So I don't have a problem with people having guns as long as they're properly licensed, screwballs and crooks aren't buying them, and background checks are made.
And if anyone wants to pass on some deer sausage this fall in gratitude for my support of the Second Amendment, I'll gladly accept.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Something worthless
So that's a no - you don't have a comment on the merits of the decision, just worthless ramblings.
For Tulsa and all but 3 cities in the nation there will be no effect from this ruling. So why would we all of a sudden see a drastic change all of a sudden? And what does it have to do with religious fanatics?
Not sure why I respond to you, 90% of your posts lack substance.
Do reactionaries and gun nuts need the second amendement for deer sausage?
There are 5 that are Federalist Society, 7 of the 9 are Republican installations.
This one in particular should be impeached.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/06/un-american-lies-of-antonin-scalia.html
Maybe, if Obama can appoint a couple of judges we can see an impeachment of Scalia.
Meanwhile, is the second amendment issue victim friendly? I'm not asking about the deer here....
Objection, non responsive AGAIN.
And if the Existentialist Cowboy says a Supreme Court Justice is wrong, he must be. He cited a report that was later retracted AND I disagree with his legal logic because I don't like the outcome, so impeach him!
The Supreme Court ruled against your position - solution: impeach the author of the opinion. Just last week you were saying we need more Republican appointees. You didn't know it, but you said we need a Democrat to appoint more XY and Z'z... listing all republican appointees.
Thank you for showing your lack logic skills. But I ask you AGAIN:
1) What about this opinion do you disagree with?
2) What historical aspects in the definition do you take issue with?
3) Do you have any linguistic issues?
Basically, WHY ARE THEY WRONG. For gods sake, all you need to do is plagiarize some portions of the dissent.
quote:
Meanwhile, is the second amendment issue victim friendly? I'm not asking about the deer here.
Blue. That response made about as much sense as this question.
We are dealing with fundamental rights. Is free speech "victim friendly" to those slandered? What protest rights "victim friendly" to those being protested? How about property rights, not very friendly to the victim of hold outs.
What a stupid question. Try again, try harder.
I believe you have the right to own a musket.
I am certain you also back the right to carry a loaded firearm into our National Parks which has been prohibited but with NRA and gun nut preasure Mista Bushed proposes to now allow. It too will end up in front of the Bushevik 5 on SCROTUM.
Look out for missed deer fragments while hiking the family through Yosemite. Damned if I'll go camp in a National Park with a bunch of crazies running around with booze and guns...the Park Rangers are scary enough...(no music after 8pm, tie that kitten up or I'll have to shoot it, don't make me call in the SWAT team..put that fire out, I don't care if its raining, you think thats a fire pit? your papers..your permit..your passport..your business, here?)
80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....
You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.
I think if this has upheld the provisions of the 2nd amendment allowing gun ownership in a high crime city, this is good news. Now if they can provide for gun ownership in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago....
CP:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed
.
If you take in consideration the conditions the constitution was written in a very secrete meeting that was to determine the states right which came along almost 200 hundred years later.
Being I am noted for two subjects in a single sentence the error was placing a comma after free State not a period.
In the second sentence the comma after Arms should have been left out thus ending the second sentence with a period.
Boy if I were to write something as in the order of the Second Amendment I would be call uneducated even with my 4th grade report card.
Like Rome, we have more bureaucrats than leaders. Boy do we have an selection on who will run the country the next four years.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the WaPo story if anyone wants it in layman's terms [;)]:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html?referrer=email
This is a landmark. First conclusive ruling on Amend II since ratified in 1791.
Lock and Load!
[:)]
And don't shoot yourself in the foot. [}:)]
I'll keep crutches handy.
And, don't you shoot your mouth off.
[:P]
FOTD:
I don't carry a weapon in public nor do I keep a weapon readily accessible in my home (I have a young son). So in spite of yet another topic shift and non responsive post, your accusation that I am somehow trying to show off just doesn't work.
And the National Parks weapons ban has nothing to do with this case. The court makes it clear that the right is not absolute. Go read the case you are criticizing before complaining so much. And I'll assume you have never been off the main roads in a national park anyway, so the discussion would be moot.
And you try yet another shotgun blast (
changing the topic is not discussion), eventually you'll make a point if you just keep changing it up -
quote:
Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims?
No. It is bullsh!t statements like this (along with "think of the children") that allow our rights to be given away. Your argument is, "to protect the people we need to take away their rights." And that is about as close to fascism as one can get (the State knows best).
With that position, I will NEVER agree.
- - -
Shadows:
The founders chose words VERY carefully. The meaning as interpreted has historical as well as linguistic support. Please read the first 5 or 6 pages of the opinion linked above and it VERY clearly goes over these points.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Gun-Ban-Gunned-Down.htm
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I am certain you also back the right to carry a loaded firearm into our National Parks which has been prohibited but with NRA and gun nut preasure Mista Bushed proposes to now allow. It too will end up in front of the Bushevik 5 on SCROTUM.
Look out for missed deer fragments while hiking the family through Yosemite. Damned if I'll go camp in a National Park with a bunch of crazies running around with booze and guns...the Park Rangers are scary enough...(no music after 8pm, tie that kitten up or I'll have to shoot it, don't make me call in the SWAT team..put that fire out, I don't care if its raining, you think thats a fire pit? your papers..your permit..your passport..your business, here?)
80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....
You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.
If you read something other than Pravda, you would have known this morning this creep was arrested for killing his wife.
I'd figured that out by the third paragraph of the original story. It was flimsy as hell. She took four or five shots, he got shot in the hand with his own gun...hello????
The SCOTUS opinion changed nothing of it and would not have. More gun control would not have saved her. If this nut-job wanted her dead he'd have figured another way to do it. Why don't we ban ligatures, rat poison, insulin, etc. ad nauseum to prevent things like this from happening in the future, k?
Legal gun owners are mostly responsible people and take having a firearm serious, especially on public lands. I don't have a single fear of going into a National Park.
Here is crime data for Washington DC from 1960 - 2005. The handgun ban went into effect in 1976.
In the year following, crime in the
gun related" areas drastically shot up - most notably robbery and murder. It peaked in 1991 at absolutely unreal levels of violence. It has since come back down, but remains higher than it was in 1976.
That does not prove that having guns lowers crime rates... but it certainly goes to show a LACK of correlation between making guns illegal and stopping crimes involving firearms.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Scroll down to see the "crime rate" data to take fluctuations in population into account. Most articles attribute the drop in crime to the gentrification of much of the city that started in the early 1990's.
And again, the "crime' element is not my angle. I don't pretend having a gun will necessarily keep me safe. But in return, recognize that banning has never been shown to reduce gun violence in America.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....
You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.
Apparently, she was not shot by an intruder.....
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8564778
"Records show Kastner had claimed he was in the Israeli Special Forces and was going to have access to millions of dollars through an Israeli charitable group called the 713 Corporation."
He was a nut but not a gun nut.......had access to a gun and shot her in the head.
Sad. She was a kind person.
Meanwhile, "It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Here is crime data for Washington DC from 1960 - 2005. The handgun ban went into effect in 1976.
In the year following, crime in the
gun related" areas drastically shot up - most notably robbery and murder. It peaked in 1991 at absolutely unreal levels of violence. It has since come back down, but remains higher than it was in 1976.
That does not prove that having guns lowers crime rates... but it certainly goes to show a LACK of correlation between making guns illegal and stopping crimes involving firearms.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Scroll down to see the "crime rate" data to take fluctuations in population into account. Most articles attribute the drop in crime to the gentrification of much of the city that started in the early 1990's.
And again, the "crime' element is not my angle. I don't pretend having a gun will necessarily keep me safe. But in return, recognize that banning has never been shown to reduce gun violence in America.
I miss D.C.'s crackhead Mayor Berry.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....
You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.
Apparently, she was not shot by an intruder.....
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8564778
"Records show Kastner had claimed he was in the Israeli Special Forces and was going to have access to millions of dollars through an Israeli charitable group called the 713 Corporation."
He was a nut but not a gun nut.......had access to a gun and shot her in the head.
Sad. She was a kind person.
Meanwhile, "It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story
Is that normal for our police chief to totally impugn the character of a suspect in the media? Kastner's attorneys are going to have fun with that.
CF:
Since the days of Athens, we should consider this as current history, as it is a duplication over and over the control of a self selected group who want the working poor to finance them, as through our department of propaganda we seek to control the cash cow which furnishes the source of their control.
Peter Woll in his works of the formers of the constitution (American Government) would analyze each of the members that were not chosen by the working poor, to participate in the writing of the constitution behind guarded closed doors. Many were there to protect states rights which they feared federalism would render them back to the English rule.
Franklin at the start of the meeting said similar to "I smell a rat" and went home.
After the draft was completed the question arose that this was total federalism, which denied the states rights, so it lay on the table as only a draft that would not be submitted to the legislators because it contained no right for the working poor.
A couple years later at another meeting the 12 Amendments to give the working poor a place in the constitution was submitted and of them 10 were chosen to be included in the final draft being submitted by the congress to the states as an insurance that it included both state and civilian rights.
I agree history records that a selection of words were used to make no commitments of states rights nor individual rights. As the war of 1860 settled State Rights and Justice Cardozo in 1937 ruled on the working poor's civilian right.
These "well chosen words" in the present requires in excess of over one-million attorneys and judges writing in millions of white papers of the interruption of the simple well chosen words to clarify the simple chosen words used in the Amendments.
The system has not died as it is alive and well in the political system existing in Tulsa and elsewhere as the cash cow has become the working poor.
From the days when the civilians gathered together for protection of their rights in Athens, (creating the cash cow) today there has been no change.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
80 million Americans have a right to bear arms.... Was there not a woman shot to death just yesterday here in Tulsa? She was shot with her own registered gun by an intruder. Shouldn't there be an emphasis on safety over freedom in order to protect the victims? Is it ok to do above ground nuclear testing? No. But, it's for national security. Who cares about the fallout? Same logic....
You still can't wear your gun on the outside CF
despite your desire to show off.
Apparently, she was not shot by an intruder.....
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8564778
"Records show Kastner had claimed he was in the Israeli Special Forces and was going to have access to millions of dollars through an Israeli charitable group called the 713 Corporation."
He was a nut but not a gun nut.......had access to a gun and shot her in the head.
Sad. She was a kind person.
Meanwhile, "It's a big blow to those of us who believe in common sense gun laws," Gov. Rod Blagojevich said during an appearance at a West Side community agency to announce a summer jobs program. "And as a result, it's the wrong decision."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story
Is that normal for our police chief to totally impugn the character of a suspect in the media? Kastner's attorneys are going to have fun with that.
He seems to be doing a good job. Kastner will need an assigned attorney. And good luck with that. You don't think the weirdo will confess for a death sentence reduction?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
CF:
Since the days of Athens, we should consider this as current history, as it is a duplication over and over the control of a self selected group who want the working poor to finance them, as through our department of propaganda we seek to control the cash cow which furnishes the source of their control.
Peter Wall in his works of the formers of the constitution (American Government) would analyze each of the members that were not chosen by the working poor, to participate in the writing of the constitution behind guarded closed doors. Many were there to protect states rights which they feared federalism would render them back to the English rule.
Franklin at the start of the meeting said similar to "I smell a rat" and went home.
After the draft was completed the question arose that this was total federalism, which denied the states rights, so it lay on the table as only a draft that would not be submitted to the legislators because it contained no right for the working poor.
A couple years later at another meeting the 12 Amendments to give the working poor a place in the constitution was submitted and of them 10 were chosen to be included in the final draft being submitted by the congress to the states as an insurance that it included both state and civilian rights.
I agree history records that a selection of words were used to make no commitments of states rights nor individual rights. As the war of 1860 settled State Rights and Justice Cardozo in 1937 ruled on the working poor's civilian right.
These "well chosen words" in the present requires in excess of over one-million attorneys and judges writing in millions of white papers of the interruption of the simple well chosen words to clarify the simple chosen words used in the Amendments.
The system has not died as it is alive and well in the political system existing in Tulsa and elsewhere as the cash cow has become the working poor.
From the days when the civilians gathered together for protection of their rights in Athens, (creating the cash cow) today there has been no change.
Civilian rights or civil rights? Interesting wording Shadows.
Substitute the words "working poor" for slaves. It wasn't reverting to English rule they feared as much as losing the right to own slaves.
Why are you softening the facts up?
FOTD:
The slavery question was not the cause of the war (cross your fingers) the cause was for economy reasons. It was the life style of the southern states. It was two years after the war started before the Edict of Emancipation was written. (This is all on very thin ice.)
I stand by the "civilian rights" There has always been a poor cash cow through all history. Name one country that has not gone through it
We should consider who is elected vice president. The odds are greater than those at the casino......................................."
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
FOTD:
The slavery question was not the cause of the war (cross your fingers) the cause was for economy reasons. It was the life style of the southern states. It was two years after the war started before the Edict of Emancipation was written. (This is all on very thin ice.)
I stand by the "civilian rights" There has always been a poor cash cow through all history. Name one country that has not gone through it
We should consider who is elected vice president. The odds are greater than those at the casino......................................."
You're kidding.
Slavery=commerce=wealth building=life style....
I'm pretty certain without slaves, those Southerners would have never had a good life style.
Damn those Southern slave owners. They were having such a high time too. Until that Lincoln guy came around. Indeed, thin ice Shadows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia.
The Supreme Court has spoken: Thanks to the court's blockbuster 5 to 4 decision Thursday, Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense. I leave the law to lawyers, but the public health lesson is crystal clear: The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly endorsed the wisdom of keeping a handgun in the home for self-defense. Such a weapon, he wrote, "is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.
In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies. The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.
More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.
Oh, one more thing: Scalia's ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn't fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property. In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.
The court has spoken, but citizens and lawmakers should base future gun-control decisions -- both personal and political -- on something more substantive than Scalia's glib opinion.
-- Arthur Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University
Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-court-john-robertsjun29,0,5374420.story
"In his three years on the court, Roberts has never sided with the more liberal members against his conservative brethren in a close case. He's never been that uncertain, critical fifth vote. That role has been played almost exclusively by Justice Anthony Kennedy."
"With his third term as chief justice coming to a close amid three explosive cases last week, John Roberts has proved to be almost everything conservatives hoped and liberals feared."
Roll players. Calamity court? Up the ole scotus erh,uh, scrotum. Take that you liberal and progressive scumbags. We gotcha with Clarence Thomas. Downhill from there. Pubic hairs on coke cans. Go on......
We should ban residential swimming pools also. I mean it is for the children!
What's more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.
Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.
Don't get me wrong. My goal is not to promote guns, but rather, to focus parents on an even greater threat to their children. People are well aware of the danger of guns and, by and large, gun owners take the appropriate steps to keep guns away from children. Public attitudes towards pools, however, are much more cavalier because people simply do not know the facts.
It takes thirty seconds for a child to drown. Infants can drown in water as shallow as a few inches. Child drownings are typically silent. As a parent, if you let your guard down for an instant, a pool (or even a bucket of water) may steal your child's life.
The Consumer Products Safety Commission offers a publication detailing some simple steps for safeguarding pools (available on the internet at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/359.pdf). The advice is mostly common sense. Included among the suggestions are installing fences that entirely surround the pool, putting locks on the gates, keeping house doors locked so toddlers cannot slip out of the house unmonitored, and installing power safety covers for the pool.
If every parent followed these steps, perhaps as many as 400 lives per year might be saved. This would be more lives saved than from two of the most successful safety-interventions in recent decades: the use of child car seats and the introduction of safer cribs. Potential lives saved from pool safety are far greater than from child-resistant packaging (an estimated 50 lives saved per year), keeping children away from airbags (less than 5 young children a year have been killed by air bags a year on average since their introduction), flame retardant pajamas (perhaps 10 lives saved annually), or safety drawstrings on children's clothing (two lives saved annually). Simply stated, keeping your children safe around water is one of the single most important things a parent can do to protect a child.
As a father who has lost a son, I know first-hand the unbearable pain that comes with a child's death. Amidst my grief, I am able to take some small solace in the fact that everything possible was done to fight the disease that took my son's life. If my son had died in a backyard pool due to my own negligence, I would not even have that to cling to. Parents who have lost children would do anything to get their babies back. Safeguard your pool so you don't become one of us.
Steven Levitt is a professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and a research associate of the American Bar Foundation.
Sheesh, now I feel the need to fill in my pool and melt my guns into a peace sign belt buckle or two.
Thanks MH
My handgun, my parasite
Never forget: The brutal effects of the Bush regime will be felt for generations
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Mark Morford
07/02/2008
Ah, so this is how it's gonna be.
Like recurring cancer. No, more like a rogue rash, an STD, flaring up at unexpected times and in unexpected places and when it fades, you gently let yourself forget all about it until it suddenly erupts and hits hard and ruins your day, and then you can only sit back and moan softly, slather on ointment, shudder.
Wait, one more: Maybe it's most like a nasty intestinal worm, a wicked parasite like those you suck down in India or deep Mexico or the jungles of Indonesia, the kind that burrow deep and attach to all manner of essential organs and induce a wicked bout of dysentery or all-over body convulsion, until you finally crawl out of the hospital and drown in antibiotics and slowly work your way back to semi-health — but only semi, because of course you are never quite the same.
This is where we are. This is the state of the nation after having swallowed the malicious worm of Bush. We have, by all accounts, suffered — and somehow survived — the very worst of the illness, the cancer, the oozing spirit. But now, as America's worst president prepares to amble off the stage he never deserved to be on in the first place, it is time to prepare for any number of convulsions, aftershock, excruciating reminders.
Here is your Bush-loaded Supreme Court, for one regrettable example, addressing the much-misinterpreted Second Amendment for the first time in eons. Here is the majority of the court basically arguing that, in case you forgot, much of America still blindly loves its guns, and of course handguns are a nice addition to any God-fearing family's arsenal of ridiculous self-defense weaponry and therefore banning a device designed to do nothing but kill other humans is just plain wrong.
It is, by all accounts, a severe, dark cloud of a decision, loaded with sadness and a feeling of despair, the cruel notion that America is still defined by its love of violence, or even the utterly phony idea, put forth by Justice Antonin Scalia himself, that only violence prevents violence, or that the answer to the gun problem is, quite simply, more guns, because surely that's what the founding fathers intended, more paranoid NASCAR dads stocking Glocks in the rec room to protect the rug rats from those icky drug-dealing rapists who never come.
Is it worth mentioning how handguns kept in the home are much more likely to be used for suicides and homicides, not to mention fondled by those same curious rug rats who find daddy's little Elvis in the sock drawer and decide to aim it at their sisters? Worth pointing out that the self-defense argument is not only pathetically illogical, part of a silly pseudo-cowboy mythology, it's also statistically untrue, a perpetual, insidious lie that's undermined the American identity for generations?
Nah. Let us not stare down that particular barrel of gloom just now. Instead, let us prepare. Let us steel ourselves. As we head into the Obama era and as the GOP juggernaut mercifully sputters and lurches back to the cave of 1950, let us be reminded that escaping the Bush aftermath isn't going to be all wine and roses and new energy policies.
See, we've been enjoying a small reprieve. These past six months or so, it's been sort of delightful to finally turn our attention toward the imminent Democratic sea change and away from the ravages of the Bush disease, to finally look toward the new, as we get to focus on all those things we might be able to do once we get out of this damn hospital and get the weak-kneed Democratic Party out of second gear.
But oh, not so fast.
Let us be reminded, the Bush virus will be with us for years, generations. Aside from the shambles of Iraq and the Middle East, aside from handguns and the decided mixed blessing of the Supreme Court's recent spate of decisions, there are maneuvers and decisions we don't even know about, nefarious arrangements, a corruption so deep that normally staid historians are behaving more like alarmed climate-change scientists: We know it's going to be bad, but we just don't know how bad.
There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.
Where do you dare to look? Women's rights? Science? Foreign policy? Currency devaluation? Big Oil? Halliburton's billions in war profit? Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and the Dick Cheney agenda of torture and pre-emptive aggression? What about unchecked corporate cronyism, the shunning of the United Nations and of international law, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, wiretapping and surveillance and "evildoers" galore?
And finally, what of all those families, the thousands of dead U.S. soldiers, the tens of thousands of brain-damaged, disabled, permanently wounded? Bush's legacy isn't just one of staggering social ineptitude combined with shocking success at serving his corporate masters. It's foremost a legacy soaked to the bone in blood.
Truly, I firmly believe the record will reveal that no president in modern history has done more to unravel the American identity, to dumb down the populace and cater to the basest instincts of man than the one about to mispronounce his way into the history books. Even Nixon didn't leave office with Bush's incredible range of ignominy.
Ironically, this is why many in the GOP are chuckling in secret, rubbing their hands together, plotting their revenge. They know the colossal pile of issues and problems Barack Obama will inherit is so overwhelming, so unsolvable, it doesn't matter how smart and aggressive he might be. It doesn't matter that he'll have a Democratic Congress. He's just plain doomed. Combine this with America's infamous short attention span, and within a few years, just watch as the GOP emerges from the murky depths, the champion of a "new" solution.
I know, it can seem bleak. Insurmountable, even. But here's the lesson of any major injury, of surviving a serious illness and getting on with your life. Often, it's not merely about letting time heal all wounds. It's not always about ignoring the scar, or looking away from our permanent deformity and pretend we don't now walk with a savage limp.
It's far more about learning to live with the violence that's been wreaked upon the national body, letting the scale of the wound fuel us, shock us back to life. Question is, do we have enough optimistic ointment to cover it all? "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/02/notes070208.DTL&nl=fix
lol, I never read FOTD's spam articles. But I just read over that one (read last post before reopening a thread). Damn constitution all getting in the way of this San Francisco man's ideas. I blame Bush too. Repeal the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it, don't argue that it doesn't really exist.
- - -
Anyway, here is a picture of the new machine gun I bought last Thursday:
(http://www.chesterarmsllc.com/Handgun/Glock/Glock%2022.jpg)
Is too a machine gun. At least, that's what DC says. Anything that can shoot 12 bullets without having to reload is a "machine gun" and banned. You also still have to keep your weapon disassembled unless you are in immediate danger - so robberies must be scheduled in advance.
And FYI, crime has not risen as a result of the revocation of the gun ban. Time will tell, but I doubt it doubles like it did when weapons were revoked (aka, it didn't solve the problem).
A new lawsuit has been filed. And on and on we go!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCTDCtVBhc2ugiMV6sP_bPJKdG2QD927381G1
Walthur here......beats a pitchfork.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
lol, I never read FOTD's spam articles. But I just read over that one (read last post before reopening a thread). Damn constitution all getting in the way of this San Francisco man's ideas. I blame Bush too. Repeal the 2nd Amendment if you don't like it, don't argue that it doesn't really exist.
- - -
Anyway, here is a picture of the new machine gun I bought last Thursday:
(http://www.chesterarmsllc.com/Handgun/Glock/Glock%2022.jpg)
Is too a machine gun. At least, that's what DC says. Anything that can shoot 12 bullets without having to reload is a "machine gun" and banned. You also still have to keep your weapon disassembled unless you are in immediate danger - so robberies must be scheduled in advance.
And FYI, crime has not risen as a result of the revocation of the gun ban. Time will tell, but I doubt it doubles like it did when weapons were revoked (aka, it didn't solve the problem).
A new lawsuit has been filed. And on and on we go!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCTDCtVBhc2ugiMV6sP_bPJKdG2QD927381G1
I should have kept my mouth shut and bought that one for myself. I had no idea it was a gov't model. Lucky dog!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/unitarian-church-shooting_b_115392.html
Unitarian Church Shooting is Terrorism
Joe Lauria
"The shooting at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN on Sunday that left two adults dead and seven wounded was an unequivocal act of terrorism.
Though the international community at the UN General Assembly has been unable to come up with a common definition of terrorism as it applies to existing groups there are broad elements of a definition that are widely held.
An act of terrorism is violence by a civilian or civilians against unarmed civilians for a political motive. Al-Qaeda attacking US servicemen in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or in the USS Cole, or in Iraq or even in Fort Dix, New Jersey is not terrorism. It is a guerilla attack. Al-Qaeda attacking civilians in US embassies in Africa or at the World Trade Center is indeed terrorism.
So is suspect Jim D. Adkisson's attack on civilians in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Police found a letter in Adkisson's car expressing his " hatred of the liberal movement."
Even if this man hopefully acted alone it is chilling to all progressive people and groups, like the Unitarians. Are we free to express our views, indeed to allow our children to perform in a church play?
Adkisson must be tried on terrorism charges and the White House and Congressional leaders must speak out against this form of domestic terrorism too, not just the inflated threat from Islamic extremists that threaten American political and economic interests abroad and help drum up defense contracts at home."
For those who hate Huffington Post but love their guns.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/unitarian-church-shooting_b_115392.html
Unitarian Church Shooting is Terrorism
Joe Lauria
"The shooting at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN on Sunday that left two adults dead and seven wounded was an unequivocal act of terrorism.
Though the international community at the UN General Assembly has been unable to come up with a common definition of terrorism as it applies to existing groups there are broad elements of a definition that are widely held.
An act of terrorism is violence by a civilian or civilians against unarmed civilians for a political motive. Al-Qaeda attacking US servicemen in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or in the USS Cole, or in Iraq or even in Fort Dix, New Jersey is not terrorism. It is a guerilla attack. Al-Qaeda attacking civilians in US embassies in Africa or at the World Trade Center is indeed terrorism.
So is suspect Jim D. Adkisson's attack on civilians in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Police found a letter in Adkisson's car expressing his " hatred of the liberal movement."
Even if this man hopefully acted alone it is chilling to all progressive people and groups, like the Unitarians. Are we free to express our views, indeed to allow our children to perform in a church play?
Adkisson must be tried on terrorism charges and the White House and Congressional leaders must speak out against this form of domestic terrorism too, not just the inflated threat from Islamic extremists that threaten American political and economic interests abroad and help drum up defense contracts at home."
For those who hate Huffington Post but love their guns.
I think huffpo gets this one wrong. Terrorism, to me, is more of a conspiracy between two or more people with an agenda to strike fear in the hearts of those they despise.
This isn't much different than a school shooting or any other church shooting. How does labeling it terrorism or not bring back the dead or change the fact these people are dead?
It doesn't change a single thing, other than creating an opportunity for multiple wasteful court cases, like Terry Nichols.
(//images/speech/icon_speech_oops.gif)
[:O]
What does the church shooting have to do with this thread anyway?
We are not debating if guns can kill people nor what the definition of terrorism is. Clearly no side of the case wants to see people killed. And article has no bearing on the issues at hand.
I can't honestly believe that there are people in favor of taking away a citizen's rights... period.
Much less take away the right to own a gun and defend themselves.
It just doesn't make any sense.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I can't honestly believe that there are people in favor of taking away a citizen's rights... period.
Much less take away the right to own a gun and defend themselves.
It just doesn't make any sense.
No it doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't make any sense why an admitted gun owner (FOTD claims to have a Walther) would propagate subliminal anti-gun propaganda from huffpo and other sources.
Also makes no sense for someone who claims to be an investor to constantly talk about a ****ed economy, unless all his bets pay off when everyone else hurts.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
I can't honestly believe that there are people in favor of taking away a citizen's rights... period.
Much less take away the right to own a gun and defend themselves.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Simple. As Mao said in 1938 "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" Government can never claim control over an armed public. That government will always be the servant of the people.
Try to halt violence by restricting gun ownership and you won't halt violence. But you will create entire classes of new criminals – people who make paperwork errors, violate technical specification of the law, or rebel against the new restrictions. And you'll create new bureaus, new enforcement arms, new prisons to punish them. You'll make hordes of lawyers and bureaucrats very happy. Organized criminals will be grateful to the naive moral crusaders ("useful idiots") as they profit by selling an illegal product. And ordinary street criminals will bless fools, legislators, and "leaders" for making their job so much safer. – "Bill of RIghts Sentinel", Fall 2001.
When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet. – Lyle Myhr