Jim March
Member
I'll get started. It'll be *short*. Two or three pages oughta do.
Once done I'll show it to you and Peter alone, see if he'll go along.
Once done I'll show it to you and Peter alone, see if he'll go along.
Silveira case, breaking news: ever wanted to see a PISSED OFF JUDGE!?
- Thread starter Jim March
- Start date
- Status
Pendragon
Member
I have to hand it to you Angel.
I did not renew my KABA membership after the first year for the same issues Jim has/had.
However, lately, the NRA has just been doing the worst possible thing everywhere they poke their nose.
I am becoming cynical enough to think they actually like the murky situation we have today - that way they can call me with an "urgent message from Wayne" every time some flunky in congress comes up with a no-chance-in-hell anti gun bill.
Heck, I wonder if they dont pay some of these guys to write the junk for no other reason than to scare people into keeping up their NRA membership.
Anyway, I am currently striving to move UP to merely broke, but I will renew my KABA membership later this year and support this cause any way I can.
Good on you Angel and does red or white wine go best with crow?
I did not renew my KABA membership after the first year for the same issues Jim has/had.
However, lately, the NRA has just been doing the worst possible thing everywhere they poke their nose.
I am becoming cynical enough to think they actually like the murky situation we have today - that way they can call me with an "urgent message from Wayne" every time some flunky in congress comes up with a no-chance-in-hell anti gun bill.
Heck, I wonder if they dont pay some of these guys to write the junk for no other reason than to scare people into keeping up their NRA membership.
Anyway, I am currently striving to move UP to merely broke, but I will renew my KABA membership later this year and support this cause any way I can.
Good on you Angel and does red or white wine go best with crow?
Jim March
Member
Dunno. I don't drink. Gotta wash it down with Jolt Cola or something 
.
Anyways.
Another question arises: is there any way we can use Lockyer's documented illegality in CCW paperwork against him in the Silveira case? Kind of "evidence of bias", either raised by Gary somehow or in an amicus? I'm talking about the material I'm documenting regarding the '99 CCW forms cover-up, and AB1044. Lockyer violated state law, period, full stop, in order to cover up HORRIBLE stuff - there has to be a way to turn that against him?
.Anyways.
Another question arises: is there any way we can use Lockyer's documented illegality in CCW paperwork against him in the Silveira case? Kind of "evidence of bias", either raised by Gary somehow or in an amicus? I'm talking about the material I'm documenting regarding the '99 CCW forms cover-up, and AB1044. Lockyer violated state law, period, full stop, in order to cover up HORRIBLE stuff - there has to be a way to turn that against him?
Pendragon:
It ain't easy being the bearer of bad news. Galileo was executed.
FYI, KABA wouldn't exist if NRA's management wasn't a bunch of politicians with pretty faces and fancy suits. NRA members are the best people there are -- it's the management that needs replacing. It's a damn shame they aren't what they pretend to be. I'd rather be following my dream of doing music. I'm quite a singer, and I can write a song to any tune you play on your guitar in about 90 seconds. "Some day," I tell myself...
I've only got 20 minutes in it, so it's not polished yet -- keep that in mind. Sometimes I remove my more direct communications so as not to inflame people who hate brutal honesty. (There's a fine line between lighting brushfires and igniting blazing infernos. I'll let you know if I ever find it!)
I don't LIKE that those things are true. But the fact that I don't LIKE something doesn't negate its presence in Reality, unfortunately.
You and a lot of other people who drop me a note every week or two!
It ain't easy being the bearer of bad news. Galileo was executed.FYI, KABA wouldn't exist if NRA's management wasn't a bunch of politicians with pretty faces and fancy suits. NRA members are the best people there are -- it's the management that needs replacing. It's a damn shame they aren't what they pretend to be. I'd rather be following my dream of doing music. I'm quite a singer, and I can write a song to any tune you play on your guitar in about 90 seconds. "Some day," I tell myself...
Some NRA fella on another thread today inspired me to write this rough draft: http://keepandbeararms.com/nra/guncontrol.htm
I've only got 20 minutes in it, so it's not polished yet -- keep that in mind. Sometimes I remove my more direct communications so as not to inflame people who hate brutal honesty. (There's a fine line between lighting brushfires and igniting blazing infernos. I'll let you know if I ever find it!)
I don't LIKE that those things are true. But the fact that I don't LIKE something doesn't negate its presence in Reality, unfortunately.
NRA has confessed to writing gun laws that get "attacked" -- that's not just a fear; it's happened. But even scarier, on the link above, is the gun control NRA BRAGS ABOUT.
We don't want to break a family's finances, Pendragon. In fact, hang back on pitching in for two or three more months and we will PAY YOU to promote our organization. The whole power structure of the "send us all your money" gun rights movement is about to undergo a RADICAL change. I'd like to have a few thousand gun rights activists working full time for liberty and making a good living doing it. I intend to make that happen. A plan, years in the making, will be announced within two or three months. Until then, get your financial stability in your own life before you go giving money to civil rights groups. And thanks for having the courage to look beyond my crusty exterior to what I'm actually getting at. I care about freedom. That's it. I want the war being waged against our rights to end in time for my infant son to get his first machinegun.
I usually wash my crow down with coffee -- so I can keep working.
That's a really good question, Jim. I must confess I don't have a really good answer. The case and its justifications are already a matter of record. Bringing in a whole new set of issues, and evidence to back them up might be possible, and even helpful. But I'm just the wrong guy to get a good opinion from on that matter. Ask Gary. If it's doable judicially, he'll touch base with Roy on strategy and viability. Personally, I think the whole Lockyer approach on the case doesn't go for his throat like I'd like to see happen -- and your data certainly paints him into a nasty little corner.
Let me know what you find out.
Jim March
Member
I'll talk to Gary.
Gray Peterson
Member
Count me in, Angel! There are thousands of out of work pro-gun rights folk who need it, and quite frankly, I need it too.
Hope you won't terribly mind a gay man in your corner. Pink Pistols and all.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
IF the S.Ct. takes up the case, here's what we HAVE to hammer home:
Quote:
"Like any right, it is not absolute. Just
as the right to freedom of speech is subject to limitations for
defamation, threats, conspiracy, and all sorts of other traditional
qualifications, so is the right to keep and bear arms.
Indeed, the word “infringed†in the Second Amendment suggests
that the right, such as it is, may not be “encroached upon,â€
rather than that it, unlike all the other rights in the Bill of
Rights, is absolute. The one thing that is absolute is that the
Second Amendment guarantees a personal and individual
right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits government from
disarming the people."
Let's look at limitations on the right to freedom of speech. Just because some one has (or a few people have) yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we don't ban theaters, ban crowds, or require attendees to wear a gag. Defamation is not a felony. It is a civil cause of action to recover damages after the fact. We do not take away paper, pens, or computers from everyone just because some one has defamed others in the past. We do not even infringe on the defamer's ability to defame again in the future. Making threats or conspiring to commit a crime are crimes themself. We do not, however, require these people to wear gags or never to associate with others after they have served their sentence. Nor do we do this pre-emptively to all because others have abused these rights.
If so called "limits" on 1st Amend. rights is to be used as an excuse for "reasonable regulation" on the 2d, lets hold them to intellectual honesty.
Quote:
"Like any right, it is not absolute. Just
as the right to freedom of speech is subject to limitations for
defamation, threats, conspiracy, and all sorts of other traditional
qualifications, so is the right to keep and bear arms.
Indeed, the word “infringed†in the Second Amendment suggests
that the right, such as it is, may not be “encroached upon,â€
rather than that it, unlike all the other rights in the Bill of
Rights, is absolute. The one thing that is absolute is that the
Second Amendment guarantees a personal and individual
right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits government from
disarming the people."
Let's look at limitations on the right to freedom of speech. Just because some one has (or a few people have) yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we don't ban theaters, ban crowds, or require attendees to wear a gag. Defamation is not a felony. It is a civil cause of action to recover damages after the fact. We do not take away paper, pens, or computers from everyone just because some one has defamed others in the past. We do not even infringe on the defamer's ability to defame again in the future. Making threats or conspiring to commit a crime are crimes themself. We do not, however, require these people to wear gags or never to associate with others after they have served their sentence. Nor do we do this pre-emptively to all because others have abused these rights.
If so called "limits" on 1st Amend. rights is to be used as an excuse for "reasonable regulation" on the 2d, lets hold them to intellectual honesty.
WildthereareabsolutelynoabsolutesAlaska,
I'm with Henry.
The right to express one's-self ends where you begin to cause harm to others. No yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre - unless there is a fire.
Same limitations should exist for the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, own what you like, buy/sell/use what you like, but you're not allowed to shoot up someone's car/house/dog/body - unless it is in justifiable self defense.
Right?
I'm with Henry.
The right to express one's-self ends where you begin to cause harm to others. No yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre - unless there is a fire.
Same limitations should exist for the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, own what you like, buy/sell/use what you like, but you're not allowed to shoot up someone's car/house/dog/body - unless it is in justifiable self defense.
Right?
I don't care what you do in your bedroom or under a shade tree. Our organization's official Inclusion Policy was published a long time ago and has been used to get rid of all kinds of bigots: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/about/inclusion.asp
rock jock
Member
Just sent KABA $100 earmarked for this case. Make us proud!
Pendragon
Member
Yeah, because, uhm, I only want my rights if they are secured by white christian straight men who belive exactly like me -otherwise, why bother?
Smurfslayer
Member
we'll see.
Honestly, I don't think we have 5 "strict constructionist" justices who will rule in favor of an "individual rights" view.
I think that Thomas and Scalia would hold to Individual rights, with emphasis on individual.
I think that Rehnquist, and O'connor would say that it is an individual right with narrowly tailored exceptions and subject to police power of the state with emphasis on the latter 2 points
We will have AT Least Breyer, Ginsburg, and souter will completely ignore any prior rulings on the BOR to support the "collectivist" view.
Not sure the other 2.
I think that they may actually take the case though, in order to get out in front of it. They realize full well the impact of 2a being interpreted as a strict individual right, and they will be under immense pressure to not rock the boat. In the end, I think they will walk the tightrope between the circuits and say that 2A is an individual right, subject to reasonable restrictions - such as a ban on "assault weapons" for the "compelling state interest" of society as a whole ( for the children! ).
So.... What happens ? What if SCOTUS rules 1 way or the other ? What if they say :
1: Individual right, law is unconstitutional on it's face. No other law is going to dissolve away into history, on the contrary, AG Ashcroft, and all the state AG's will state in abundantly clear terms, that all gun control laws meet the constitutional test, and will be vigorously enforced.
Very seldom does the SC make a blockbuster ruling. Very often, their rulings favor the State. Very, Very seldom does the SC overrule a previous ruling of the SC. On just these points, we stand about a 1 in 10 chance if the case is accepted.
I'd like to see us win big, I'm just not sure yet... And once more information is out there, I'll revise my opinion. Let's keep our fingers crossed...
Honestly, I don't think we have 5 "strict constructionist" justices who will rule in favor of an "individual rights" view.
I think that Thomas and Scalia would hold to Individual rights, with emphasis on individual.
I think that Rehnquist, and O'connor would say that it is an individual right with narrowly tailored exceptions and subject to police power of the state with emphasis on the latter 2 points
We will have AT Least Breyer, Ginsburg, and souter will completely ignore any prior rulings on the BOR to support the "collectivist" view.
Not sure the other 2.
I think that they may actually take the case though, in order to get out in front of it. They realize full well the impact of 2a being interpreted as a strict individual right, and they will be under immense pressure to not rock the boat. In the end, I think they will walk the tightrope between the circuits and say that 2A is an individual right, subject to reasonable restrictions - such as a ban on "assault weapons" for the "compelling state interest" of society as a whole ( for the children! ).
So.... What happens ? What if SCOTUS rules 1 way or the other ? What if they say :
1: Individual right, law is unconstitutional on it's face. No other law is going to dissolve away into history, on the contrary, AG Ashcroft, and all the state AG's will state in abundantly clear terms, that all gun control laws meet the constitutional test, and will be vigorously enforced.
Very seldom does the SC make a blockbuster ruling. Very often, their rulings favor the State. Very, Very seldom does the SC overrule a previous ruling of the SC. On just these points, we stand about a 1 in 10 chance if the case is accepted.
I'd like to see us win big, I'm just not sure yet... And once more information is out there, I'll revise my opinion. Let's keep our fingers crossed...
Frohickey
Member
An individual rights decision, if the SCOTUS were to make one, would be a boon to attorneys.
Imagine the money to be made by trial attorneys litigating against all the gun control laws ever since Jim Crow? That is money that would otherwise have been sent to the NRA-ILA to wine and dine politicians that have pledged an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
Imagine the money to be made by trial attorneys litigating against all the gun control laws ever since Jim Crow? That is money that would otherwise have been sent to the NRA-ILA to wine and dine politicians that have pledged an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
rock jock
Member
Frohicky,
You can't make a claim against the govt. in this case. They would say that they passed and enforced laws in an manner consistent with the interpretation of the Constitution at that time.
You can't make a claim against the govt. in this case. They would say that they passed and enforced laws in an manner consistent with the interpretation of the Constitution at that time.
Wouldn't the vehemence of a hypothetical decision and points made in the decision have a significant effect on what happens with other laws?
If the SCOTUS says "It's an individual right, and preventing people from having some type of firearm is not constitutional" would any DA in his/her right mind try to enforce gun bans? If they say (unlikely) "It's an individual right, and all these bans on types of guns and concealed carry have no real effect on crime so there's no compelling interest in limiting the 2nd in such ways" then would any DA in his/her right mind bother to enforce any such laws? I don't think they're dumb. I doubt they'd want to waste taxpayer money knowing all the defense has to do is point to a SC case and watch it get thrown out. Judges aren't dumb either, they don't want to make decisions that are certain to be overturned on appeal (except the 9th circuit - thank $deity I don't live in that circuit).
If the SCOTUS says "It's an individual right, and preventing people from having some type of firearm is not constitutional" would any DA in his/her right mind try to enforce gun bans? If they say (unlikely) "It's an individual right, and all these bans on types of guns and concealed carry have no real effect on crime so there's no compelling interest in limiting the 2nd in such ways" then would any DA in his/her right mind bother to enforce any such laws? I don't think they're dumb. I doubt they'd want to waste taxpayer money knowing all the defense has to do is point to a SC case and watch it get thrown out. Judges aren't dumb either, they don't want to make decisions that are certain to be overturned on appeal (except the 9th circuit - thank $deity I don't live in that circuit).
Wildalaska
member
Thats the proper result though..but keep in mind that a factual record must be developed to demonstrate a compelling state interest. Anyone think they would ever be able to develop same?
WildiwillbeprovedrightinthenedAlaska
Intune
Member
Wild: "Thats the proper result though.."
Good, correct, appropriate, suitable, right, fitting? Or did you mean probable?
Good, correct, appropriate, suitable, right, fitting?
Or did you mean probable?As another gentleman said, suing wouldn't be so easy. But "Reparations" being the buzzword these days, I'd certainly support a Gun Owner Reparations Campaign to help families sort out their lives once their political prisoner family members come home from the federal gunowner gulags. There are people in prison right now for exercising their basic rights -- most of them put there by the BATF Gun Nazis who pride themselves on such thuggery.
Wildalaska
member
And I forgot to mention Judge Kleinfeld is from Alaska
WildsaythankyouAlaska
WildsaythankyouAlaska
243_shooter
Member
Shamaya
Well, I was sufficiently impressed by this thread to go join up on keepandbeararms.com
I know this might be a bit OT, but I found the signup process to be a bit "confusing" in the way it works. Might want to streamline things a bit more towards the K.I.S.S. school of web design. Had I not been in the mood to wade through it I would have clicked away and never gave it a second thought (say if I just browsed upon your sight, I wouldn't have taken much time to browse through it, and surely wouldn't have signed up).
But since I got the impression from your posts that your really trying to do good work, I signed up anyway
My .02
Leo
Well, I was sufficiently impressed by this thread to go join up on keepandbeararms.com
I know this might be a bit OT, but I found the signup process to be a bit "confusing" in the way it works. Might want to streamline things a bit more towards the K.I.S.S. school of web design. Had I not been in the mood to wade through it I would have clicked away and never gave it a second thought (say if I just browsed upon your sight, I wouldn't have taken much time to browse through it, and surely wouldn't have signed up).
But since I got the impression from your posts that your really trying to do good work, I signed up anyway
My .02
Leo
Wildalaska
member
All of the above.
Just the type of comments we look for in a mainstream political group that supposedly will be trying to convince a Court, and the nation, that there position is right...
WildstillahventansweredmyearlierquestionsAlaska
Ya. Don't tell the truth because it's ugly.
The BATF is run on a scam. There are good agents, I'm told, but what I see is an armed gang of gun nazis. And there's plenty of evidence to back up such an assertion, for those willing to look at such things: http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
But you talk sweet about them if you want to, please -- be my guest. BATF has put decent people in prison and patted themselves on the back for a job well done -- imprisoned for exercising their rights. BATF is to gun owners what Hitler's SS Troops were to Jews. They're not as advanced in some ways, but just as bad and even worse in others. I stand by that statement and will never back down from it. Jack Booted THUGS.
Leo,
Definitely interested in specific feedback to improve the process. We've refined it several times. It's a third-party custom built system with lots of bells and whistles, but some definite quirks. Email directly rather than tie up more space on the THR server: [email protected]
And thank you. We believe our case will be heard and won, 7-2 or better.
--AS
Definitely interested in specific feedback to improve the process. We've refined it several times. It's a third-party custom built system with lots of bells and whistles, but some definite quirks. Email directly rather than tie up more space on the THR server: [email protected]
And thank you. We believe our case will be heard and won, 7-2 or better.
--AS
- Status
