This is supposed to be the top Second Amendment attorney in the country????
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
Al Norris
Member
Once again, the "all or nothing crowd" raises its voice to advance a position that is just not practical.
It's a convenient way to vent. But that's about all it is. People really need to get involved, at least on the local level, to see how things really work. Become the next city council member, county commissioner, whatever and see what's involved in this struggle. It may just open your eyes and your brain.
One thing that seems to be lacking is an understanding that DC is a very special place. It is not a State, nor a county. It is a city that is actually controlled by the Congress. The Mayor, the city council, the police, in short, everyone, serves at the pleasure of the Congress. With the stroke of a pen, Congress can dissolve any of DC's services or political subdivisions. What happens there affects no other political entity outside of DC.
One would think that of all places in this country, DC would be that one place where the constitutional protections of our rights would most be in force. But it isn't.
By dealing with what is, and not with how it should be, you might find your efforts may actually effect the changes you seek.
It's a convenient way to vent. But that's about all it is. People really need to get involved, at least on the local level, to see how things really work. Become the next city council member, county commissioner, whatever and see what's involved in this struggle. It may just open your eyes and your brain.
One thing that seems to be lacking is an understanding that DC is a very special place. It is not a State, nor a county. It is a city that is actually controlled by the Congress. The Mayor, the city council, the police, in short, everyone, serves at the pleasure of the Congress. With the stroke of a pen, Congress can dissolve any of DC's services or political subdivisions. What happens there affects no other political entity outside of DC.
One would think that of all places in this country, DC would be that one place where the constitutional protections of our rights would most be in force. But it isn't.
By dealing with what is, and not with how it should be, you might find your efforts may actually effect the changes you seek.
Ah! I see the pompous hordes have arrived! So much for The High Road.
Cosmoline - You make some good arguments about the oral side of this, but his line of argument follows his stated litigation strategy
Jeeper -
Funny it is, when the person who wrote the opinion we were trying to discuss, Roy Lucas has a resume that is equally if not more impressive than Mr. Halbrook's. You think you know more about litigation and litigation strategy than he? [/QUOTE]
Al Norris -
Boyd425-
You're not making a whole lot of sense.
In spite of what's been said here, it remains that NRA fighting for the re-instating of a gun registration scheme constitutes defacto support for registration should they win. The antis WILL use it and the courts will cite it as legal precedent. It's foolish to think that they will not. Halbrook has stated that this is exactly what he intends to do. So he wins and gets the registry re-instated, but fails on getting it declared unconstitutional. What is the end result? Legal precedent that registration is valid and constitutional. How is this not detrimental?
Cosmoline - You make some good arguments about the oral side of this, but his line of argument follows his stated litigation strategy
It's absurd to think that they wouldn't, especially when Mr. Halbrook has stated that reinstating the registration scheme is exactly what he intends to do, just so he can challenge it's legality.
Jeeper -
Funny it is, when the person who wrote the opinion we were trying to discuss, Roy Lucas has a resume that is equally if not more impressive than Mr. Halbrook's. You think you know more about litigation and litigation strategy than he? [/QUOTE]
Al Norris -
Once again, the NRA apologist crowd comes forward to support a position that gradually gives away our rights. DC is indeed a special place where the local government is controlled by a bunch of gun banning looney toons. Do you honestly think that they will be able to effect the changes incrementally in that environment? You're far more hopeful than I.
Boyd425-
You're not making a whole lot of sense.
In spite of what's been said here, it remains that NRA fighting for the re-instating of a gun registration scheme constitutes defacto support for registration should they win. The antis WILL use it and the courts will cite it as legal precedent. It's foolish to think that they will not. Halbrook has stated that this is exactly what he intends to do. So he wins and gets the registry re-instated, but fails on getting it declared unconstitutional. What is the end result? Legal precedent that registration is valid and constitutional. How is this not detrimental?
Did I say anything about Mr. Lucas.... Nope! He is a very well respected lawyer. So is Halbrook. It is just very funny to me when people with no legal experience are criticizing the strategy of a man who has won every case he has argued at the Supreme Court. Commenting on an article is one thing. Saying someone is an idiot is another. Nothing funnier that watching a bunch of internet scholars debate life!
When did I ever refer to Halbrook as an idiot?
You've said that twice now... let me guess, you're a lawyer!
Why have you contributed only derision? You've offered nothing of value in this discussion that is pertinent to the discussion. Rather, you jump on the end of the thread waxing pompous as if you did something special.
You've said that twice now... let me guess, you're a lawyer!
Why have you contributed only derision? You've offered nothing of value in this discussion that is pertinent to the discussion. Rather, you jump on the end of the thread waxing pompous as if you did something special.
Al Norris
Member
You couldn't be more wrong. I've never been a member of the NRA. In fact, I find many of their political positions simply untenable. But never let it be said that reasonable people can be swayed by fact when emotional labels are so handy!
Ahhhh... You are referring to the Congress, no doubt? WHat exactly is looney toons about consolidating a power base? All governments do this. Ours is no exception.
Actually I do. Hope that is. It's an Inherently Catholic Thing(tm), you see.
Besides, you seem to forget that should either the Hatch bill or the one in the House be passed, it will make this lawsuit and the CATO lawsuit moot. Hopeless? Hardly.
Preacherman
Member
KMKeller, I'm afraid you have completely missed the point of my - and others' - earlier posts. There is ALREADY abundant "legal precedent that registration is valid and constitutional"! This case will make not one iota of difference to that. To state that Holbrook is putting RKBA in danger by re-opening the register is just silly, I'm afraid. The legal and juridical reality we face is that registration has been (repeatedly) found to be Constitutionally valid, in New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and other places, by local, State and Federal judges. That's a given, it's a fact, and there is no denying it. We - certainly I - might think that this position is incorrect, but that's the way it is, and it is NOT about to change.
No Preacherman, I didn't miss that and neither did Tempest or anyone else. It's you who is missing the point. When has the NRA actually done something to support registration? Hmmm. You don't see the inherent danger in that? You don't see the danger in the standard NRA incremental approach that has done so very much for us over the years. You don't consider the NRA getting in bed with the Brady Bunch on a subject very closely related to this somewhat telling?
And I'm still waiting on your response to my earlier questions as is Tempest. Or did you tire of bashing KABA and Angel when you know he's not here to defend himself? Perhaps Angel should adopt your "High Road" and spew a lot of dung about you and THR on his website.
You above all should know better. Your opinion?
And I'm still waiting on your response to my earlier questions as is Tempest. Or did you tire of bashing KABA and Angel when you know he's not here to defend himself? Perhaps Angel should adopt your "High Road" and spew a lot of dung about you and THR on his website.
You above all should know better. Your opinion?
Preacherman
Member
KMKeller, I gave my answer waaay back on this thread, when I said (in response to Nicki):
I think we need to take the emotional, knee-jerk response out of this thread, and consider facts and truth - not an emotional attack on the NRA and Mr. Holbrook resulting from a misinterpretation of the basic facts and issues in the legal action in question.
I shall continue to take The High Road in trying to draw attention to these facts and issues, and get away from the emotional and inaccurate responses propagated on the KABA Web site. In doing so, I shall not launch - or respond to - personal attacks on (or from) anyone. I'll let our members make up their own minds.
As for "spewing dung" - no, I don't think I've done that, nor will I ever do so. I think that my posts don't come even remotely close to that, as any fair and impartial reading of them will attest.
I think we need to take the emotional, knee-jerk response out of this thread, and consider facts and truth - not an emotional attack on the NRA and Mr. Holbrook resulting from a misinterpretation of the basic facts and issues in the legal action in question.
I shall continue to take The High Road in trying to draw attention to these facts and issues, and get away from the emotional and inaccurate responses propagated on the KABA Web site. In doing so, I shall not launch - or respond to - personal attacks on (or from) anyone. I'll let our members make up their own minds.
Your cop out was duly noted and rejected. As far as spewing dung, do these words ring a bell?
Or are they the model of objectivity? I think not. And not surprisingly, neither Tempest or myself responded emotionally, but were labeled as such by persons such as yourself.
Or are they the model of objectivity? I think not. And not surprisingly, neither Tempest or myself responded emotionally, but were labeled as such by persons such as yourself.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Hokay. We got the KMKeller view that getting DC to reopen their registration system is providing a position for the future where it can be said that the NRA supports registration.
We have another view that this is not the case; that it's merely forcing the DC PTB to allow self-defense under a system of registration that courts have said does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
All of us agree that registration is a Bad Thing and is indeed an infringement.
On the first two points, it looks like folks might as well agree to disagree and quit running in circles through the rosebushes. Too many thorns.
"The trouble with wiping your fanny with a wagon wheel is that there ain't no end to it."
Pardon me, Grammaw.
Art
We have another view that this is not the case; that it's merely forcing the DC PTB to allow self-defense under a system of registration that courts have said does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
All of us agree that registration is a Bad Thing and is indeed an infringement.
On the first two points, it looks like folks might as well agree to disagree and quit running in circles through the rosebushes. Too many thorns.
"The trouble with wiping your fanny with a wagon wheel is that there ain't no end to it."
Pardon me, Grammaw.
Art
FPrice
Member
Calling Stephen Halbrook...
Since some people seem to want to state what Mr. Halbrook believes, I decided that perhaps we should go to the source.
"Dear Mr. Halbrook,
I have read some of your writings on the Second Amendment and related court cases and consider that you are one of the more knowledgeable people involved in this issue. My purpose in writing to you tonight is to ask if might have the time to review an internet discussion which involves you and a recent case.
I am a member of The High Road ( www.thehighroad.org ), an internet forum of firearms enthusiasts. Our discussions run the entire gamut of firearms issues from equipment to hunting to legal and political issues. As you might imagine, legal and political discussions often get intense and cover many current items and cases. A recent thread involved your oral arguements in Seegars vs. Ashcroft in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Some conclusions were drawn regarding you and your arguements which have become the source of a heated, or at least very intense discussion. The particular thread is located at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44556 . Please note that this thread was begun by a member of the forum and does not represent an official position by the people who run The High Road.
Since the discussion involves you and an analysis of your position on various legal issues surrounding laws and the Second Amendment I am hoping that you might take the time to review this thread and perhaps give us your interpretation of what happened and why. While many of us on The High Road have strong opinions on firearms laws and the Second Amendment, I do not think our membership includes many, if any at all, people who have had the opportunity to argue such laws in front of a court as you have.
I sincerely hope that you will find the time to review this discussion and make some comments on the situation. The perspective of one who is actually in the middle of such proceedings can only serve to add to the knowledge of those of us on the sidelines who watch and try to interpret.
Thank you for your time."
Perhaps Mr. Halbrook will take the time to respond.
Since some people seem to want to state what Mr. Halbrook believes, I decided that perhaps we should go to the source.
"Dear Mr. Halbrook,
I have read some of your writings on the Second Amendment and related court cases and consider that you are one of the more knowledgeable people involved in this issue. My purpose in writing to you tonight is to ask if might have the time to review an internet discussion which involves you and a recent case.
I am a member of The High Road ( www.thehighroad.org ), an internet forum of firearms enthusiasts. Our discussions run the entire gamut of firearms issues from equipment to hunting to legal and political issues. As you might imagine, legal and political discussions often get intense and cover many current items and cases. A recent thread involved your oral arguements in Seegars vs. Ashcroft in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Some conclusions were drawn regarding you and your arguements which have become the source of a heated, or at least very intense discussion. The particular thread is located at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44556 . Please note that this thread was begun by a member of the forum and does not represent an official position by the people who run The High Road.
Since the discussion involves you and an analysis of your position on various legal issues surrounding laws and the Second Amendment I am hoping that you might take the time to review this thread and perhaps give us your interpretation of what happened and why. While many of us on The High Road have strong opinions on firearms laws and the Second Amendment, I do not think our membership includes many, if any at all, people who have had the opportunity to argue such laws in front of a court as you have.
I sincerely hope that you will find the time to review this discussion and make some comments on the situation. The perspective of one who is actually in the middle of such proceedings can only serve to add to the knowledge of those of us on the sidelines who watch and try to interpret.
Thank you for your time."
Perhaps Mr. Halbrook will take the time to respond.
gunsmith
member
niccki tempest
I was not supporting or disagreeing with Halbrook.
I can not understand how a Judge can be such a dimwit
...The Judge was "leading" Halbrook to come up with
a good argument? really?
THE COURT: YES, BUT IF THE DRAFTERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
WHEN THEY DRAFTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT,
WANTED TO CREATE AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT RESPECTIVE OF THE NEED FOR MILITIA,
THEY COULD HAVE JUST SAID THAT.
THE COURT: ISN'T THE NATIONAL GUARD
THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT WAS THE OLD MILITIA?
THE COURT: BUT AT THAT TIME THE MILITARY MIGHT
OF THIS NATION HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND, THEREFORE,
IN ORDER FOR THE NATION TO PROTECT ITSELF,
THERE WAS A NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO HAVE WEAPONS
SO THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ATTACK,
THE NATION WOULD BE ABLE TO CALL THOSE PEOPLE TOGETHER AND FORM A
MILITARY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE NATION.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.
I MEAN WE CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD ALL THE TIME,
AND WE HAVE GOT A READY AVAILABLE CACHE OF GUNS AND
WEAPONRY AVAILABLE FOR THEM.
Come on! you would think with all the stuff written on the 2nd amendment
like maybe the dissenting opinions from the 9th circut or the Emmerson
stuff that the Court could ask better questions then the same old tired
bradybunch propaganda...
God,we need a miracle please!
I was not supporting or disagreeing with Halbrook.
I can not understand how a Judge can be such a dimwit
...The Judge was "leading" Halbrook to come up with
a good argument? really?
THE COURT: YES, BUT IF THE DRAFTERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
WHEN THEY DRAFTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT,
WANTED TO CREATE AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT RESPECTIVE OF THE NEED FOR MILITIA,
THEY COULD HAVE JUST SAID THAT.
THE COURT: ISN'T THE NATIONAL GUARD
THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT WAS THE OLD MILITIA?
THE COURT: BUT AT THAT TIME THE MILITARY MIGHT
OF THIS NATION HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND, THEREFORE,
IN ORDER FOR THE NATION TO PROTECT ITSELF,
THERE WAS A NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO HAVE WEAPONS
SO THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ATTACK,
THE NATION WOULD BE ABLE TO CALL THOSE PEOPLE TOGETHER AND FORM A
MILITARY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE NATION.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.
I MEAN WE CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD ALL THE TIME,
AND WE HAVE GOT A READY AVAILABLE CACHE OF GUNS AND
WEAPONRY AVAILABLE FOR THEM.
Come on! you would think with all the stuff written on the 2nd amendment
like maybe the dissenting opinions from the 9th circut or the Emmerson
stuff that the Court could ask better questions then the same old tired
bradybunch propaganda...
God,we need a miracle please!
I dont really see the point behind the personal attacks.
Here is my opinion since you asked for it. The NRA suit was nothing more than a way for the NRA to try and control the CATO lawsuit. When that failed they had their lapdog(Orin Hatch) say that the DC ban would be removed. Halbrook and Lucas are great litigators. Both would do a fine job in the Supreme Court. What Halbrook said was in the course of litigaton strategy that I wont contest since I dont know anything about it. The same way I wouldnt tell a doctor how to do surgery or criticize him eventhough I know nothing about medicine.
I think that about covers it.
Enough. Done. Final.
I have had it. Find somewhere else. Period.
You got a problem with another Member - take it to e-mail.
You decide that you can't debate some facts without getting your panties in a bunch - go somewhere else.
This thread is embarrassing.
Squabbling like a bunch of children.
No, scratch that. Not even children exhibit the desperate need to have their feelings hurt that I see on this thread.
This. One. Is. Done.
You want to re-open it? Fine.
This is the only Goddess-be-damned warning you will get: the next person, or persons to devolve to this level of knee-biting, back-stabbing, whining and mud-slinging that I see on this thread will be gone.
You will find another forum to lay your crank on the line. Period. You'll do it yourself, or I by GOD will do it for you.
Lights out.
LawDog
I have had it. Find somewhere else. Period.
You got a problem with another Member - take it to e-mail.
You decide that you can't debate some facts without getting your panties in a bunch - go somewhere else.
This thread is embarrassing.
Squabbling like a bunch of children.
No, scratch that. Not even children exhibit the desperate need to have their feelings hurt that I see on this thread.
This. One. Is. Done.
You want to re-open it? Fine.
This is the only Goddess-be-damned warning you will get: the next person, or persons to devolve to this level of knee-biting, back-stabbing, whining and mud-slinging that I see on this thread will be gone.
You will find another forum to lay your crank on the line. Period. You'll do it yourself, or I by GOD will do it for you.
Lights out.
LawDog- Status