Well, looks like another topic of why we should vote for Bush over a third party. I got this letter from my friend in Illinois who's on a "Concealed Carry" mailing list. It makes a LOT of good points. I for one do NOT want vice-perpetrator Algore as our next president...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Williams" <g.g.williams@mindspring.com>
To: <WPSNMembersOnly@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 7:58 PM
Subject: [concealcarry] Fwd: GunsSaveLives> In STRONG support of Bush!
Subject: In STRONG support of Bush!
OK, I've had enough.
Fact: in Bush's race for Governor, he campaigned on putting in shall-issue CCW in a state with no legal armed self defense whatsoever. He got Suzanna Gratia-Hupp's endorsement. Once in office, he asked for a shall-issue bill, signed a pretty good one the moment it hit his desk, a couple of years later signed a nice little reform package legalizing Church carry and cleaning up a few other details from the first version.
Recently he signed into law a ban on TX local gov'ts suing the gun makers.
I don't give a rat's hindquarters what kind of "soothing noises" about guns he feels he has to make on his website for the "soccer moms". I care about ACTIONS, and the plain truth is you have to go back generations to find a serious prez contender who took a leadership roll in rolling BACK gun control.
It gets better. His daddy picked Clarence Thomas for the Supremes, our absolute best friend in a robe with the possible exception of Judge Cummings in TX (trial judge in Emerson). Dubya has said he admires Scalia the most among the current Supremes and would seek other nominees of a similar viewpoint - cool, Scalia isn't quite as vocal about it as Clarence but he's another strong pro-freedom type.
And now Dubya picks Cheney as veep, a guy with an unparalleled RKBA voting record in Washington to match Dubya's killer voting record in TX.
The next question is, are the Supremes gonna hear an RKBA case soon?
HELL YES they are. The 5th Circuit is probably gonna decide in favor of Mr. Emerson and support Cummings' personal rights interpretation of the 2A and US vs. Miller. But even if they don't, it doesn't hardly matter - on July 5, 2000 the 8th Circuit in US vs. Hutzell supported the individual rights" interpretation and like Cummings in TX, read US vs. Miller properly. That means the 8th and 9th Circuits are already in direct conflict, pretty much forcing the Supremes to hear the next RKBA case that comes down the pipe. See
also: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/8thCircuitDecisions.htm
In addition to Emerson, another contender for SCOTUS review is brewing: Chuck Michel's loss to the Calif Supremes in the Roberti-Roos mess! You appeal CA Supremes decisions to the US Supremes, remember?
The next prez will be able to pick between 1 and 4 new robes before any strong RKBA case could hit the SCOTUS. We get the 2A enshrined as an individual right and the whole landscape changes. Right now, calling for repeals of bad grabber laws will get a politician slaughtered. BUT laws that won't survive 10 seconds worth of "strict courtroom scrutiny to make sure they don't harm an individual civil right" *can* be attacked legislatively, because it's a "saving taxpayer money from the inevitable losing lawsuit" proposition now that the Supremes changed the game. And a creative politician CAN support "saving taxpayers money" without taking a hit.
You want Bush picking those new justices, or Gore? Sorry, Harry Brown ain't an option.
Look guys, you know me. You know I'm not knee-jerk GOP, *nobody* ripped into Fascist-in-GOP-suit Danny Lungren harder than me during the Governor's race.
Bush is NOT a "hold your nose" candidate. Does he think he has to lie a bit to get in office? Hell yes, and he's probably right. Politics ain't pretty. But the Clinton/Gore regime aren't just liars, they'll kill, cheat, steal, bomb and screw their way to office and power...playing sneaky with those SOBs isn't a moral sin, it's a damned imperative.
Vote Bush!
-------------------------------------
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Williams" <g.g.williams@mindspring.com>
To: <WPSNMembersOnly@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 7:58 PM
Subject: [concealcarry] Fwd: GunsSaveLives> In STRONG support of Bush!
Subject: In STRONG support of Bush!
OK, I've had enough.
Fact: in Bush's race for Governor, he campaigned on putting in shall-issue CCW in a state with no legal armed self defense whatsoever. He got Suzanna Gratia-Hupp's endorsement. Once in office, he asked for a shall-issue bill, signed a pretty good one the moment it hit his desk, a couple of years later signed a nice little reform package legalizing Church carry and cleaning up a few other details from the first version.
Recently he signed into law a ban on TX local gov'ts suing the gun makers.
I don't give a rat's hindquarters what kind of "soothing noises" about guns he feels he has to make on his website for the "soccer moms". I care about ACTIONS, and the plain truth is you have to go back generations to find a serious prez contender who took a leadership roll in rolling BACK gun control.
It gets better. His daddy picked Clarence Thomas for the Supremes, our absolute best friend in a robe with the possible exception of Judge Cummings in TX (trial judge in Emerson). Dubya has said he admires Scalia the most among the current Supremes and would seek other nominees of a similar viewpoint - cool, Scalia isn't quite as vocal about it as Clarence but he's another strong pro-freedom type.
And now Dubya picks Cheney as veep, a guy with an unparalleled RKBA voting record in Washington to match Dubya's killer voting record in TX.
The next question is, are the Supremes gonna hear an RKBA case soon?
HELL YES they are. The 5th Circuit is probably gonna decide in favor of Mr. Emerson and support Cummings' personal rights interpretation of the 2A and US vs. Miller. But even if they don't, it doesn't hardly matter - on July 5, 2000 the 8th Circuit in US vs. Hutzell supported the individual rights" interpretation and like Cummings in TX, read US vs. Miller properly. That means the 8th and 9th Circuits are already in direct conflict, pretty much forcing the Supremes to hear the next RKBA case that comes down the pipe. See
also: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/8thCircuitDecisions.htm
In addition to Emerson, another contender for SCOTUS review is brewing: Chuck Michel's loss to the Calif Supremes in the Roberti-Roos mess! You appeal CA Supremes decisions to the US Supremes, remember?
The next prez will be able to pick between 1 and 4 new robes before any strong RKBA case could hit the SCOTUS. We get the 2A enshrined as an individual right and the whole landscape changes. Right now, calling for repeals of bad grabber laws will get a politician slaughtered. BUT laws that won't survive 10 seconds worth of "strict courtroom scrutiny to make sure they don't harm an individual civil right" *can* be attacked legislatively, because it's a "saving taxpayer money from the inevitable losing lawsuit" proposition now that the Supremes changed the game. And a creative politician CAN support "saving taxpayers money" without taking a hit.
You want Bush picking those new justices, or Gore? Sorry, Harry Brown ain't an option.
Look guys, you know me. You know I'm not knee-jerk GOP, *nobody* ripped into Fascist-in-GOP-suit Danny Lungren harder than me during the Governor's race.
Bush is NOT a "hold your nose" candidate. Does he think he has to lie a bit to get in office? Hell yes, and he's probably right. Politics ain't pretty. But the Clinton/Gore regime aren't just liars, they'll kill, cheat, steal, bomb and screw their way to office and power...playing sneaky with those SOBs isn't a moral sin, it's a damned imperative.
Vote Bush!
-------------------------------------
------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
