HOLY ****!!

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote

Even totally discounting the Second itself, apparently Justice Stevens
hasn't heard of (particularly) Hamilton, Jefferson, et al...and shows no
understanding of what "the Framers" thought with regard to the "Bill of
Rights."

This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...and if I
were Obama, I'd keep my mouth absolutely shut unless it was to denounce
the dissent from a purely legal standpoint. The Dems oughta get busy
thanking some higher power that Stevens was a Ford appointment.

Sheesh,
R

wrote in message
...

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote
. . .
This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...

Non-Americans may need extra details to understand this.
It seems to have to do with the First Amendment "right to bear
arms" which specifies a "well-regulated militia." Judge
Stevens may be muddling together
(a) the means of regulating the militia well. I simply
do not know whether this means control of the militia
by elected politicians (civilians) or by professional soldiers.
(b) "civilian uses of weapons:" but a "well-regulated
militia" seems not to be "civilian uses of weapons."

This is why non-Americans need extra details to understand
the case or the ruling.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:33:40 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote
. . .
This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...

Non-Americans may need extra details to understand this.
It seems to have to do with the First Amendment "right to bear
arms" which specifies a "well-regulated militia." Judge
Stevens may be muddling together
(a) the means of regulating the militia well. I simply
do not know whether this means control of the militia
by elected politicians (civilians) or by professional soldiers.
(b) "civilian uses of weapons:" but a "well-regulated
militia" seems not to be "civilian uses of weapons."

This is why non-Americans need extra details to understand
the case or the ruling.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Um, Don - a coupla-three things: first (pardon the upcoming pun...),
it's the Second, not the First Amendment. Second, when did Canada quit
being part of the Americas. And third, I'd offer that most non-US
citizens (or those who don't live and/or practice law in the US), this
isn't all that significant in and of itself. OTOH, this has the
potential to influence the US presidential election, so...

IAC, simply put, what is commonly called the US "Bill of Rights" is not
really a "bill" of "rights" in that it is not, nor was it ever intended
to be, a exhaustive list of the rights of the citizens, it's a list of
restrictions upon the Federal government, specifically enumerated but
not exhaustive as to either rights retained by the people or
restrictions upon the Federal government:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added..."

It's also the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution. If you've
seen a copy or picture that has "Bill of Rights" at the top, it isn't a
true copy.

TC,
R

test
"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote
. . .
This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...

Non-Americans may need extra details to understand this.
It seems to have to do with the First Amendment "right to bear
arms" which specifies a "well-regulated militia." Judge
Stevens may be muddling together
(a) the means of regulating the militia well. I simply
do not know whether this means control of the militia
by elected politicians (civilians) or by professional soldiers.
(b) "civilian uses of weapons:" but a "well-regulated
militia" seems not to be "civilian uses of weapons."

This is why non-Americans need extra details to understand
the case or the ruling.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Jun 26, 6:33 pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
........
Non-Americans may need extra details to understand this.
It seems to have to do with the First Amendment "right to bear
arms" which specifies a "well-regulated militia." Judge
Stevens may be muddling together
(a) the means of regulating the militia well. I simply
do not know whether this means control of the militia
by elected politicians (civilians) or by professional soldiers. .............

The second amendment is about as clear s the bible and is subject to
the same very broad range of interpretations. There are a lot of
second amendment experts out there, and whatever your own point of
view you're sure to find a batch that support it, and with oodles of
historical references to boot.

I believe that most people support this ruling, regardless of where
they are in the political spectrum, tho mostly for reasons other than
whether it satisfies the second amendment.

wrote in news:12a7641l7u15d6t8mvr8vvfrsl07gsjh9c@
4ax.com:

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote

Even totally discounting the Second itself, apparently Justice Stevens
hasn't heard of (particularly) Hamilton, Jefferson, et al...and shows
no
understanding of what "the Framers" thought with regard to the "Bill of
Rights."

This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...and if I
were Obama, I'd keep my mouth absolutely shut unless it was to denounce
the dissent from a purely legal standpoint. The Dems oughta get busy
thanking some higher power that Stevens was a Ford appointment.

Sheesh,
R



I'm a shooter, but I don't know how this outcome impacts my feelings
about walking around in DC. I hope the locals can figure out some way to
deal with their gun problem in light of this decision.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 30 Jun 2008 12:49:14 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:12a7641l7u15d6t8mvr8vvfrsl07gsjh9c@
4ax.com:

NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote

Even totally discounting the Second itself, apparently Justice Stevens
hasn't heard of (particularly) Hamilton, Jefferson, et al...and shows
no
understanding of what "the Framers" thought with regard to the "Bill of
Rights."

This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...and if I
were Obama, I'd keep my mouth absolutely shut unless it was to denounce
the dissent from a purely legal standpoint. The Dems oughta get busy
thanking some higher power that Stevens was a Ford appointment.

Sheesh,
R



I'm a shooter, but I don't know how this outcome impacts my feelings
about walking around in DC. I hope the locals can figure out some way to
deal with their gun problem in light of this decision.

A couple of things: First, IMO, the majority was correct, but, um, not
as correct as the minority was stunningly incorrect. Second nothing in
the Constitution prohibits, generally, "reasonable gun control": carry
laws, registration, permitting for concealed carry, very tough laws with
regard to "gun crimes," etc., but outright _bans_, such as the DC law,
are clearly against both the words and intent of the Constitution.
There's nothing preventing DC from passing reasonable gun-control laws
like banning the general "public" possession of them (other than
concealed with a permit), reasonable transport laws (gun and ammo
separate and secured, to and from a place of legal use, if without a
permit), allowing businesses to ban all possession in their premise with
a simple signage, etc.

FWIW, a couple if anecdotes involving similar law changes in Florida -
when, by a screw-up the legislature, it was legal for an entire year to
walk down the street, even into a bank, with a gun in hand, and despite
all sorts of predictions of "blood in the streets," not a single crime
or even accident was attributed to it. Second, when it got straightened
out and Florida became a "right to carry" state (like some 30-35 others,
they started a program to track crimes and accidents. They shut the
program down after they had under 10 "incidents" to track over, IIRC, a
2-4 period (and in none of the "crimes" was anyone injured).

IAC, even if one does assume it to mean that only militias (and
"regulated" in the late 1700s meant "trained"/"drilled") are to have
arms, and for no other use other than while called to duty, the members
of the militia (now, much of the citizenry) would still need to "keep"
arms so as to "bear" them when called up. Moreover, the idea of a total
ban on weapons would have been considered preposterous, even dangerous,
in the late 1700s in either the US or England.

Most importantly, IMO, the "Bill of Rights," again, isn't a list of "the
(only) rights" of the people, it's a list of specific restrictions on
the Government. Plus, "the people" are perfectly free to repeal the
second. If this or that politician thinks that people today would
support such, I'd encourage them to take public steps toward that
end...and start planning for what they wish to do after they lose the
next election...

On Jun 30, 5:49*am, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:12a7641l7u15d6t8mvr8vvfrsl07gsjh9c@
4ax.com:





NOTE - This is what AP is quoting from the dissent. *I have a copy, but
I haven't read the entire thing yet...

-- Begin AP quote:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer, wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200
years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He further writes that such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

-- End AP quote

Even totally discounting the Second itself, apparently Justice Stevens
hasn't heard of (particularly) Hamilton, Jefferson, et al...and shows
no
understanding of what "the Framers" thought with regard to the "Bill of
Rights."

This could be among the most stunning opinions ever issued...and if I
were Obama, I'd keep my mouth absolutely shut unless it was to denounce
the dissent from a purely legal standpoint. *The Dems oughta get busy
thanking some higher power that Stevens was a Ford appointment.

Sheesh,
R

I'm a shooter, but I don't know how this outcome impacts my feelings
about walking around in DC. *I hope the locals can figure out some way to
deal with their gun problem in light of this decision.

How could they possibly have had a gun problem if guns were banned
there?

100% tongue in cheek
- Ken

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:43:47 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


How could they possibly have had a gun problem if guns were banned
there?

What is you, boy - some kind uh got-damned libearl commie-pinko...? Them
Yankee libearl bastids banned guns - thar's yer got-damned problem ri'
thar...

HTH,
R

100% tongue in cheek
- Ken