EMERSON!

[MountainGun44]

According to James Baker in this month's Shooting Times magazine:

"I don't want you to lose sleep over this, but Judge Garwood and I, between us, own enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries."

One of the 3 judges on the panel made this closing remark to DOJ attorney William Mateja after he argued the Reno/Clinton position that private citizens have no protection against gun prohibitions.

According to Baker, it appears that the government's fanatical position against the 2nd amendment is killing them in this case.

(I wonder if that is their plan. They are arguing such an extreme anti-2nd ammendment position it seems unbelievable. Maybe they feel they will win at the supreme court level.)

 

[hoosierboy]

I know the gov lawyers said to the judge that the only people that should b e allowed to own guns are police and military. I think they are going to lose. I know the decision wont be out for a few months or maybe sooner. I heard that clinton is so stupid that they will go and take this to the supreme court. I don't know the outcome, and neither does anyone else. I can only hope that things will change. In case I am wrong I am trying to purchase as many guns as I can afford. Especially from private dealers.

------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"

http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html

 

[scud]

I'm glad, there are still a few people in the .gov that are standing up for what is right.

[This message has been edited by scud (edited August 15, 2000).]

 

[bookkie]

If and when the case goes to the SC there will be one of two outcomes... As I believe will happen, the SC will uphold the 2nd. If not then be prepared.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!

 

[TexasVet]

I am really getting weird waiting on this decision. If they rule the law out on 2nd Amendment grounds,(only one of several options they have even if they dump the law) then in the 5th circuit; Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas; all federal gun laws will be invalid (Sorry about all you guys in other states) until the Supremes hear the case. I keep thinking, "which now cheap machine gun do I want?" Sigh, Just dreaming.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
true story, a Union Gen. once said "Don't worry about those Rebs. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..SPLAT.

[This message has been edited by TexasVet (edited August 16, 2000).]

 

[Mr.X]

Is it possible,that the Supremes could rule
the 2nd Ammendment is an individual right....
but that the Gov't has the right to regulate firearms?

 

[Jim March]

Mr. X, if the Supremes rule completely in our favor, it still leaves us with two issues:

1) YES, some gun control could in theory be allowed, but any such rules would have to pass "strict scrutiny" to make sure there's a DAMNED good societal safety reason to infringe in this fashion. And if Miller is understood correctly, military-style weapons would be even more protected than anything else.

Example: the various "semiauto assault rifle" bans would be impossible for the courts to support. This class of gun is used in less than 4% of all crime, and they're often similar enough to military versions (M16, etc) to act as effective "trainers".

2) An Emerson win at the Supremes still doesn't establish the 2nd as "incorporated" against the states. See also Akhil Reed Amar's "The Bill Of Rights" and Stephen Hallbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed" - both establish that the 14th Amendment was designed to protect black RKBA for defense against Klan raiders, lynch mobs, rogue southern state gov't officials and the like. If so, and the Supremes admit it, we got us a whole new ballgame at the STATE level . *Many* state-level gun control laws had a directly racial origin, and we already have precedent saying that state laws with a racial origin should be subject to "close examination" and dumped if there's any lingering disciminatory results (Hunter vs. Underwood): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=222

Jim

 

[Keiller TN]

I read about the government's appeal of US vs Emerson in the Blue Press (a gun supply catalog) and looked it up on the web. Every one who visits TFL should write to your local news paper and tell them what the Clinton/Gore Justice dept. believes about the Second Amendment. Here is a quote from http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonOralArguments.htm :

The attorney for the federal government argued that there was absolutely NO right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Feds went so far as to claim that membership in the National Guard was not enough to privately possess any firearms, including militia-type weapons. Vice-President Al Gore, if elected President this November, would continue to hold the Second Amendment as null and void.

Please read the following chilling exchanges:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Judge Garwood was having none of that.

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."



------------------
"Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it:
except the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." (Psalm 127:1)


"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
(Alexander Solzhenitzyn)

 

[MP Freeman]

One interesting thing that might come out of this Emerson case if the SCOTUS rules for individual freedom, may be the full-court no holes barred effort to repeal the 2nd amendment. Or maybe amend the 2nd to achieve political correct status.

I for one am getting really excited about this case. If the good guys win this case with the appropriate judgement on the second amendment, gun-control as we know it now, will be gone.

The SCOTUS WILL rule on the 2nd some day soon, they can't run from it forever. And when they make their ruling, I will start shopping or start packing. Only two options. I am starting to get weird as well about this case. Could be alot on the line here, or the court could avoid the whole thing as usual.

 

[MP Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TexasVet:
..... Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas; all federal gun laws will be invalid (Sorry about all you guys in other states) until the Supremes hear the case. I keep thinking, "which now cheap machine gun do I want?" Sigh, Just dreaming.
[/quote]

Texasvet, If Texans get the good full-auto toys and we Hoosiers don't, well then: You will hear me say "Howdy Neighbor!, Where's the Gun Store. I ain't lived here long, but got here as quick as I could, Partner"

 

[stuckatwork]

There is one possiblity that we are missing in these discussions. The Emerson may be reviewed by the appeals court level as illegal search and seizure of personal property case. This would allow the supremes to bypass the thorny 2nd question and deal with the right of the state to selectively take property without due process. If I was the lawyer for Emerson, this is the angle that I would be following.

1) The state without the full disclosed knowledge of the citizenry can confiscate personal property.

2) This confiscation is done without the right of due process or the approval of a law judge to issue the seizure warrant.

3) Emerson was required to surrender the property to the police where he could be arrested for the possesion of the property at issue.

Three points, three Constitutional rights violated. The ownership of the firearm is secondary in this case. This may be the case to get to the Supreme Court. But, I would bet that neither side, pro or anti-gun wants it to go there...yet. Not until the composition of the court is more clearly defined.

My only suggestion is get your rear ends out and VOTE! And get those..."it doesn't really matter" types out to the ballot box. We do not only need a Republican President, we need conserative members of congress. All we need is three or four in the Senate and a handfull in the House. Then we may have some breathing room. Remember the next president will more than likely appoint two Supreme Court Justices...who do you want making that choice..GW or Al Gore?

If you don't vote, you have no reason to bitch.

------------------
You can find the price of freedom, buried in the ground.

 

[Bruegger]

"Knock, knock."

"Who's there?"

"EMERSON"

"Emerson who?"

"EMERSON nice ...uh ...guns ...uh ...dude"

Now back to the topic. I may be cynical, but... DO YOU REALLY THINK the US SCt will throw out all federal gun control laws? Come on. They're only ruling on this one law, which is overreaching.

Even if they rule that individual gun ownership is an individual, fundamental right, they will say "reasonable" gun control laws pass the "strict scrutiny" test because of public safety. There is already a public safety exception to the 5th Amendment, as there is to the 1st Amendment.