Project Appleseed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

Now this is a BFD...

5 to 4.  Liberty squeaks through one more time by the skin of her teeth. This stands in my mind as clear evidence of the urgency of our mission. 

Quote from: PHenry on June 28, 2010, 03:10:58 PM5 to 4.  Liberty squeaks through one more time by the skin of her teeth. This stands in my mind as clear evidence of the urgency of our mission. 

Agreed.  We need those four dissenting justices at an Appleseed pronto - with a teachable attitude.

Quote from: PHenry on June 28, 2010, 03:10:58 PM
5 to 4.  Liberty squeaks through one more time by the skin of her teeth. This stands in my mind as clear evidence of the urgency of our mission. 

It's sad that liberty has to squeak by so closely....and yes, I agree, clear evidence of how urgent this is.   

A great decision by SCOTUS- almost 100 years in the making.  Right now the decision is a 'slip opinion'. Unfortunately, states like IL, NY, NJ, MA, &c. still have control of regulating firearms as they see fit.  

The decision attempts to limit legislative end runs a la Heller, where DC's Mayor and City Council tried to over legislate firearms; writs were filed and things are somewhat (ab)normal.

What part of a Right is so difficult to understand??  Asked rhetorically!

Tom

Quote from: Another D.O.M. on June 28, 2010, 04:47:42 PM

Quote from: PHenry on June 28, 2010, 03:10:58 PM5 to 4.  Liberty squeaks through one more time by the skin of her teeth. This stands in my mind as clear evidence of the urgency of our mission.  

Agreed.  We need those four dissenting justices at an Appleseed pronto - with a teachable attitude.

That would be great, but they are unteachable!  Check their decisions & dissents at: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges

Quote from: desertrat144 on June 28, 2010, 08:49:30 PM

Quote from: Another D.O.M. on June 28, 2010, 04:47:42 PM

Quote from: PHenry on June 28, 2010, 03:10:58 PM5 to 4.  Liberty squeaks through one more time by the skin of her teeth. This stands in my mind as clear evidence of the urgency of our mission.  

Agreed.  We need those four dissenting justices at an Appleseed pronto - with a teachable attitude.

That would be great, but they are unteachable!  Check their decisions & dissents at: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges

Good luck teaching them...they'd spit in your face before they'd take up a gun at Appleseed....

Chicago's ridiculous band on firearms is one more reason why I decided to leave the windy city.  I just wish this decision would make those types of restrictive laws dry up and blow away.  But something tells me there will constantly be attempts to take away what the 2nd amendment couldn't state more clearly.

I'd just posted the following on another thread earlier. I'll post this again here because it bears thought:

'SCOTUS: all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms' is interesting. Remember Heller? Everybody was touting that as a victory. But if you went and read Heller vs DC you quickly realized that it wasn't the victory it was made out to be. Let's think about this for a second. If Heller was the ultimate victory then why did this latest case have to go before the SCOTUS? Hadn't that already been decided according to the press back when HELLER occurred?

Reading through HELLER you quickly realized the weasly wording contained. It was the type of wording a liberal lawyer just loves.

I remember here in Texas after the KELO vs New London case about imminent domain was decided. Everybody was up in arms. The SCOTUS (Scrotum?) had decided Govt can take your property. The Texas legislature reacted by passing a law supposedly protecting property rights here in Texas. It was said to "Protect Texans Against Imminent Domain Property Seizures." I went and read the law. It actually made it easier in certain instances to take property. You just have to submit the proper paperwork in order to do so. It just kind of formalized things. It was a bit different than the victory for Texas Landowners the papers proclaimed.

What is worse is the 'vague and incomprehensible' language used in many laws now. It is written that way on purpose. It is meant to confuse. At one time 'vague' laws were considered null and void in courts. No longer. Overly broad language was cause to nullify a law. No longer.

Be very careful of what MSM says about certain victories. Things are not what they seem.

Also, why the CAPS on all of these cases. I'll leave it at that. There is a reason though. But that's a long subject I won't go into now.

Anyhow this is on topic. Reading this should make you want to get out to the next AS or talk to others about coming out or just plain doing something.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to fathom? Words on paper will never stop crime - they only affect the law-abiding. A cursory study of history and the reading of Cesar Baccaria is sufficient proof to any honorable and decent man or woman.

When an honest man, who is mistaken, is confronted with the truth. He will either cease to be mistaken, or he will cease to be honest.

There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction upon a natural right. The entire concept is a lie perpetrated by............well, back top bailing.

Quote from: PHenry on July 02, 2010, 11:15:56 AMThere is no such thing as a reasonable restriction upon a natural right. The entire concept is a lie perpetrated by............well, back top bailing.

Precisely!  Part of our jobs during the bailing process is to wake up the sleeping Americans to the fact that the concept of a 'Constitutional Right' is very much misguided.  Our Constitution does not grant rights; our rights exist solely by nature of the fact that we are alive.  The written document only reinforces that a government may not interfere with them - it does not provide a government with an opportunity to 'define' or 'interpret' them.  The American People need to understand this most fundamental of concepts if they wish to retain their birthright!

IMO this concept of 'Constitutional Rights' ranks right up there with the equally misguided pretense by the talking heads that our system of government is a Democracy.  Every time one of these government or media jackrabbits utters this fallacy it is our responsibility as citizens to correct them, loudly and  publicly.  If we do not, we're merely reinforcing the delusion.
MJA

An idea I have been discussing at events during my benediction is the "Employee attitude".

When you work for a company - you don't trouble yourself so much with the health of the company for several reasons - not your job - I'll just get another job - it's out of my control, etc.

When you own a company - you tend to seat EVERY detail and concern yourself greatly with the health of your property.

Americans, by and large, have embraced an employee attitude and it will be the death of Liberty. We need to council our attendees to accept ownership and the responsibility it entails. This is OUR country, our birthright and our responsibility. It is our duty as Americans to become involved in the running of our country, as our ancestors did before us.

"Employee attitude".
That's good PHenry.
I will plagiarize on that.

be my guest sir -

For the Latest & Greatest Daley Machine reactions re: Chicago see "Chicago Approves Tough New Handgun Restrictions in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling"  Don Babwin, Law.com - Chicago Approves Tough New Handgun Restrictions in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling,  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463274660# (last visited July 2, 2010).  It's D.C.s reaction to Heller playing Chicago style.  

At least Daley isn't getting any play out west about trying to bring in the U.N. to circumvent the Laws and Court decisions that the Constitution mandates be obeyed by U.S. Citizens.  There are a number of portions on You Tube before & after SCOTUS' Chicago ruling.

The fun continues to continue.

Tom

I think there may be another thread on this that I posted on but in any case I think the idea from those who don't want to accept the recent court case will be to continue to pass laws and attempt to enforce them until the are stricken again or the court upholds a restriction.  Therefore, this will play out with restrictive laws passed, challenges raised, law stricken, etc., etc. Having have had the benefit of going to law school I now read these cases with a little bit different perspective I suppose, but it will be interesting to see it play out in the courts and I am sure that is exactly what the latest restriction is expected to do.

Simply, it willl be a War of Financial Attrition.  He who has the deepest pockets wins.

Once again, congrats on Law School completion, and good luck with the Bar Exams.  Study well Torts & Contract Law, particularly the U.C.C. relationships.

Tom

Sorry if I made it seem like I recently graduated been out several years and practice in house now. I didn't want to put down my thoughts on deepest pockets but since you have stated it you are exactly right, may also take some for the law to further develop.

Quote from: mtbrass on July 03, 2010, 09:31:06 PM
Sorry if I made it seem like I recently graduated been out several years and practice in house now. I didn't want to put down my thoughts on deepest pockets but since you have stated it you are exactly right, may also take some for the law to further develop.

Apologies on the assumption, I had you confused with someone else. Mea culpa

Re: 'deep pockets' since the Slaughterhouse cases, The NFA Act of 1938, GCA 1968, subsequent lower court rulings up to and including SCOTUS, it has been money in the long run to regain our rights without over-regulation.  See D.C.s reaction to Heller, now the Daley Machines response to Chicago- they rammed through a slug of laws that does another legislative 'end run' around the decision.  SCOTUS of course will only rule on the question asked (usually) which they did in both cases.  I'm not sure how many folks, the younger Appleseeders especially, reading these posts realize the scope and how the court's limit themselves to specific issues posed.

I'll fall off my soap box now.

Tom

IMO the solution and end to all of this legal game-playing is quite simple.

What is required is for the legal profession in this country to begin actively and aggressively prosecuting criminals under 18 U.S.C. §241:

"          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

It's that simple.  Apply the law to everyone, equally and without prejudice.
MJA

The McDonald decision wasn't that great.  Way too much "wiggle room" for overzealous government officials at all levels.  And it's a national scandal that four justices voted AGAINST the Seconed Amendment meaning what it clearly says.

But think how horrible it would be if the decision had been the other way!

Jeff Snyder, author of Nation of Cowards, is right.  (Y'all really ought to read it, if you haven't already!)  If the spirit of the people is dedicated to liberty, we don't need a Second Amendment.  If the spirit of the people is hostile to liberty and dedicated only to the illusion of safety, then an airtight Second Amendment and a thousand court decisions supporting it, will do no good.

Bail, bail, bail!  Seventh step, seventh step, seventh step!

didactic,
Roger that sir! Words on paper will never stop a criminal from committing a crime, nor a government from oppressing its people. Hearts and minds. Natural rights, granted by the Creator of all things, and not the province of mere mortals.

Until the people embrace self-reliance, there can be no Liberty, as self-reliance is the foundation upon which Liberty is built.

Now the next rounds re: Chicago and hizzhonor(?) Daley, and the recently enacted Chicago response by legislative flanking.  See NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago at http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13996, and Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers Launches Lawsuit Against Chicago at http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=070710-IL.cfm&path=2010.  The case is Benson v. City of Chicago at http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Benson_v_Chicago_Complaint.pdf.

The fun continues to continue.

Tom

Quote from: desertrat144 on July 07, 2010, 10:00:36 PM
Now the next rounds re: Chicago and hizzhonor(?) Daley, and the recently enacted Chicago response by legislative flanking.  See NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago at http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13996, and Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers Launches Lawsuit Against Chicago at http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=070710-IL.cfm&path=2010.  The case is Benson v. City of Chicago at http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Benson_v_Chicago_Complaint.pdf.

The fun continues to continue.

Tom

Those may be the next rounds in Chicago, but I believe the 2A Foundation, etc are immediately jumping into other cases that will leverage the McDonald decision.  There is one starting up in North Carolina against their law that prohibits carrying of firearms during states of emergency.  I believe they are also filing a challenge to Kalifornia's handgun roster.

We will see 2A-related lawsuits for decades now that we have the Heller and McDonald cases establishing firearms ownership as an individual and "fundamental" right.  

What concerned me with first Heller and now McDonald is that the majority opinions still leave wiggle room for local and state regulation.  Daley wants to (if he hasn't already) put massive restrictions on ownership now that his beloved ban has been removed.  I agree that there is nothing subtle or hard to understand about "shall not be infringed" but with the forces at work in the media and Washington it is clear that following the Bill of Rights to the letter is not going to happen without a massive campaign in the both courts and the voting booths.

SD-

QuoteThere is one starting up in North Carolina against their law that prohibits carrying of firearms during states of emergency.

There is Federal Law along with Fed. Ct. orders prohibiting this type ban- it came out of Katrina.

Quote...wiggle room for local and state regulation...

Unfortunately those questions were not specifically addressed in the suits.  I believe that they were in McDonald, but when the NRA came in and 'took over' the linking of 2A & 14A became the driving issues only.  Daley and the Chicago Bosses are going full tilt.  The suit out of CA addresses possession of firearms on State, County and/or City Property as this was used to ban gun shows in areas.

Frankly, I believe that these folks (Daley et al) should be removed from office for violating their Oaths of Office.

Tom