I'll reply more to this when I'm not
watching TV, but for the moment...good job Tim.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:02 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Supreme Court Refuses to Confirm Constitutional Right toBear Arms
In line...
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court disappointed gun rights groups Monday by refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.
The court has never said if the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individuals.
They are fixin to open up a can of worms...
Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case,
Poor leadership spiting in the face of his constituency. These justices desperately need rained in. The one chick that said that decisions that
are handed down in other countries ( see Europe) influence her decisions , should be impeached.
involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.
Loaded word. Any rifle is a "high powered weapon."
Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rife Association, the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
<singing> "We've got *friends* in LOW .. places." <G>
Timothy Rieger, California's deputy attorney general, said the case involved regulations on "rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children." Even if the challengers won, there are virtually identical national restrictions passed by Congress on assault weapons, he told the court.
There is a big difference between "rapid fire" and assault weapons. I don't trust these morons to define "rapid fire" for me...
The Second Amendment says, "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."
Sounds pretty basic to me....
Daniel Schmutter of Paramus, N.J., representing Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, had told the justices in a filing that they should decide "once and for all" what protections gun owners have.
He is right, but I am scared what the answer will be...
Tim
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
