Gore for hunters - yeah right

K

KAM_Indianapolis

New member
I had my best friends over my house for Labor day weekend. I was apalled that my best friend is thinking of voting for Gore. Even worse, her husband, an avid hunter and outdoorsman, said he was considering it to. He actually said "Gore is for hunters." Seeing that I haven't seen my friends since Memorial day (they live in PA), I didn't want to get into a political argument. But now I'm ready to send them a little reality check. I've been researching and printing out articles for him.

So basically I need some help convincing him of his error. Can anyone point me in the right direction. I've already got enough on the Clinton-Gore anti-gun policies, their mis-use of conservation funds, mis-use of forest service funds. Nothing directly relating to hunting though.

Thanks in advance...
Keith
 
The RKBA is not about hunting.

It is about having firearms as instruments of lethal force to protect ourselves and democracy.

Hunting is like playing tennis and irrelevant to the argument.

Besides after the RKBA folks, then the hunters get it. Look at France, UK, Canada, Australia.
 
Did you get the one where Fish and Wildlife service officials tried to use funds gathered from taxes on hunting to support an anti-hunting group? Check the NRAs website if you didn't (http://www.nraila.org/)
 
Enoch - I know the RKBA isn't about hunting, my friend is most interested in hunting so I want to be sure to dissuade him from voting for Gore. (Especially since he is in a swing state.)
 
Anyone for Gore is promoting socialism, but that aside, maybe this will help:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint050500a.html


NATIONAL REVIEW Online
5/05/00 10:10 a.m.

The Gore Gun Agenda
Al's ultimate objective would be to abolish all firearms privacy.

By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute

What's in the future for the anti-gun agenda, should Al Gore be elected
President? Just drop by the website for Handgun Control, Inc., to find
out.


There's only a short interval from the keyboards at HCI to the lips of
the
President and Vice President. On the site, you'll find details about
comes
next â€" but not what comes after that. Nor will you find any details on
what
HCI Chair Sarah Brady says is her long-term objective: a "needs-based
licensing" system, in which gun ownership is allowed only when the
police
determine that the would-be owner "needs" the gun.

How does one get from the current Clinton/Gore/HCI program to the
needs-based
licensing system? In other words, what would a Gore administration push
for,
if it achieved the current items on the anti-gun agenda?

Perhaps the best guide is the 1994 report of the White House Working
Group, a
secret memo which was uncovered by U.S. News and World Report. Here's
the
long-term strategy:

Complete Gun Licensing and Registration
First, the attack on the non-existent "gun show loophole" is only a
warm-up.
The ultimate objective is to abolish all firearms privacy. Every
firearms
transfer â€" including a Christmas gift from one's cousin â€" would have
to be
routed through a federally-licensed dealer, and recorded by the federal
government.

A government license would also be needed to purchase ammunition.

All currently owned firearms would have to be registered with the
federal
government, and non-registration would be a federal crime. During the
Democratic primaries, Bill Bradley called for national gun registration,
while Gore rejected Bradley's plan as politically unrealistic. Gore was
correct; for registration to be politically possible, it needs to be
built on
an existing system of licensing. Salami tactics are the essence of
successful
gun control.

The Clinton/Gore proposal for a national ID card for handgun purchasers
is a
sensible "moderate" and "common-sense" step toward the goal of total
licensing and registration for all guns. Politically speaking, it is
best if
the initial stages of gun licensing can be implemented liberally (as
rifle
licensing was in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s) so that most people can
get
the license. Once licensing is in place, the bureaucracy can take care
of
gradually tightening the licensing process (without ever needing to ask
the
legislature to change the law), so that hardly anyone qualifies for a
license
(as rifle licensing currently is enforced in Britain).

Hunting Restrictions
While the White House licensing and registration system would apply to
all
guns, especially strict rules would be imposed on owners of handguns and
for
self-loading long guns (such as the Marlin Camp Carbine or the Ruger .22
rifles). Appropriating a term of art from Canadian gun law, the White
House
would designate all handguns and all self-loading long guns as
"restricted
weapons." Owners of "restricted weapons" could possess them only at
home, at
work, or at a target range.

In other words, it would be a federal crime to go bird hunting with a
Remington 1100 shotgun. Handgun hunting, which is legal in every state
in the
Union, would vanish.

President Clinton and Vice President Gore strenuously insist that none
of the
laws which they have signed, and none of the regulations they have
created,
have interfered with hunting. Although Clinton and Gore are not correct
in
their claim, their "restricted weapons" agenda would remove their
pro-hunting
mask, and take away the primary sporting arms of millions of American
hunters.

Bans on Defensive Gun Use and Possession
It would also be a federal crime to carry a handgun in public for
protection
â€" even for people with state licenses authorizing them to carry.

The White House memo also recommends consideration of a federal law to
outlaw
"the carrying of firearms in...work sites." The White House proposal
would
override current laws of many states, which allow a person who runs a
dry
cleaning shop that stays open late to choose to carry a concealed gun
for
protection. Or an accountant who stays at work late during March and
April,
can choose whether to keep a handgun in her desk, and carry it with her
when
she walks to the parking lot late at night.

The White House Working Group praises the 1976 Bartley-Fox law in
Massachusetts. This law imposes a mandatory one year term in prison for
carrying a gun without a permit. In one notorious case, the law was
applied
to a man who started carrying a gun after a co-worker assaulted him, and
repeatedly threatened to kill him. The co-worker did attack later, and
the
victim successfully defended himself. The crime victim was then
sentenced to
a mandatory one year in prison for carrying a gun without a permit. This
is
the kind of law that the Clinton/Gore administration wants to apply
nationwide.

Banning More Guns
The Clinton/Gore memo states that domestic manufacture of guns should be
brought under the federal government's regulatory standards for product
designs. The White House memo predicts that such regulation would outlaw
"Many handguns now manufactured in the United States for civilian use."
With
great applause from the White House, a forerunner of the White House
plan was
recently imposed in Massachusetts, by the administrative edict of the
state
Attorney General. The result of the new standards was to ban the sale of
all
handguns except the Smith & Wesson models
 
From WesternHunter:
http://www.westernhunter.com/Pages/Vol02Issue27/vote.html

Will You Let Them Gut-Shoot Us Again On November 7?
Well, if you don't think it is a real possibility, you have had you head in the sand for the last two years.
Hunters who are sitting back and doing nothing about the passage of gun laws and the constant attacks against our hunting rights will be the ones to blame. Some may say, "I don't have the time; I can't give money," but if that is your excuse, you don't have an excuse for the easiest and most powerful thing you can do, VOTE!
This election year, it is clear who wants to take your gun rights away. Those candidates are open in their speeches that they want more gun control, from the White House to the State House to your city officials. Notice they say "gun" not "criminal" control. If you are a gun owner, you are blacklisted as someone associating with something evil. If you own more than one gun, Oh my, you must be part of a militia — after all what civil person would ever need more than one gun if any at all?
Fellow hunters and gun owners, the opposition will not stop until they not only have you register every gun you own, but take them from you. They are using the general public, which is ignorant about your rights and the issue of guns and crime, to do it.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing, more important than your vote this year. If we don't stop them this year, it is questionable what there will be to save in the elections two years or four years from now.
Make a difference, here's how:
• Register to vote
• Make sure your friends and relatives are registered to vote
• Help those candidates that support your rights
• Vote on November 7
Extra things you can do:
• If you will be on a hunting trip on election day , use an Absentee ballot
• Get an Absentee ballot for your friends and relatives
• Do as many of the following as you can for your candidates:
- Contribute to their campaign
- Put a lawn sign up
- Put bumper stickers on your vehicles
- Walk your neighborhood for them
- Drive people to the polls
- Have a "Meet the Candidate" session at your home
- Press your hunting friends to the wall to vote — no excuses.
Don't let them gut-shoot us on election day!
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem — VOTE!
Jerry Springer
Publisher/Editor
Get Registered
 
KAM,

Point out the argument being used by the Klinton-Gore attorney in the Emerson case:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Judge: "Are you saying the second amendment is consistant with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict the ownership of rifles, shotguns and pistols from all the people? Is that now the position of the United States?

The gore attorney answered "yes"

"Is it also your position that persons that are not in the national guard are afforded no protection under the second amendment?

Mr. Meteja responded: "Exactly"[/quote]

Also show him the cases they cite in support of this position, and how they use out of context snippets from them. I can send you that info, if you'd like.

zook
 
I cant top the wonderful points above.
But you should also point out to your friend
whos still for Gore, how hes against AW weapons,hes now called for a ban on so called 'cheap handguns' which amount to a long list.Ask your friend after these are if he thinks Gore will be happy then.
Ask him what makes him think Gore see's hunting rifles pump shotguns as so different and unable to be used by the criminal element
Gore claims to be attacking.
How much trouble can a man with a 6 round revolver and a 6 round bolt action rifle give a BATF team armed to the teeth with neat vests and full auto high-cap weapons.
when were all to that point how many are going to try fighting for their freedom.
When theyve been diminished to mere hunters.
www.ccops.org www.jbs.org

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000911_xnjdo_no_right_t.shtml


No right to bear arms?

Clinton/Gore Solicitor General:
2nd Amendment doesn't
apply to individuals


By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not guarantee to Americans the individual right to keep and bear arms, according to a letter written by the U.S. solicitor general to a National Rifle Association member and posted on a NRA website.

The letter, dated Aug. 22 and signed by Solicitor General Seth Waxman, contains a number of references and passages from a series of U.S. court cases that the Justice Department says demonstrate that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not "convey" an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

"That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive administrations," Waxman wrote. "More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia."

The Solicitor general's office primarily serves to supervise and conduct government litigation in the Supreme Court, and is involved in about two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases annually. Spokesman Wanda Martinson confirmed that Waxman had sent the letter.

The NRA member, whose name was removed from the letter by the organization when posted online at the NRA's website, had written to the Justice Department seeking clarification for a position taken by a U.S. attorney in a current gun-law case. The attorney had stated that "the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The case, United States vs. Emerson, is currently on appeal in the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings of Lubbock, Texas, ruled March 30, 1999, that a gun-control law prohibiting Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson from possessing a firearm while under a restraining order from his estranged wife was unconstitutional.

The law, Cummings wrote, "is unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights" to keep and bear firearms.

In his letter, Waxman cited nearly a dozen court cases that "have uniformly held that [the Second Amendment] precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the organized state militia."

Also, Waxman cited a 30-year-old Department of Justice Legal Counsel interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun," said the Legal Counsel interpretation, as quoted by Waxman. Since then, "there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment]," the interpretation said.

"Courts ... have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun," said the Justice Department.

"In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun," the interpretation concluded.


Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.


------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com

[This message has been edited by nralife (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
Just in case your friend is not a single issue voter - Fair tax plan:


Your friend Eric thought you might be interested in this article from OpinionJournal and forwarded it to you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Truth on Tax Cuts

Why the Bush plan is better.

Can we agree that nothing is fair in love and war and taxes? Good. Now we can turn to the matter at hand--the tax cut proposals from George W. Bush and Al Gore.
If fairness means the most number of people ought to get their own money back, then Governor Bush's proposal wins. If fairness means that the lowest-income people ought to get the biggest tax cut, then Mr. Bush's proposal wins. If fairness means that the highest-income people ought to get the smallest tax cut, then Mr. Bush's proposal wins. And if fairness means that people should not have to jump through government-approved hoops to receive any tax cut at all, then Mr. Bush's proposal wins.

If you trust us, you can stop reading. If you're suspicious, then consider each of those statements in turn.

• The Bush tax cut goes to the most people. First, it is across-the-board. It would replace the current 15-28-31-36-39.6% system of rates with a 10-15-25-33% structure. That means every single one of the 94 million taxpayers in the country will get relief.

But that's not all. The very lowest earners--those who make enough money to file, but not enough money to pay--will also get tax relief. How so? Simple.

About 30 million people file income-tax returns but do not earn enough money to pay taxes. They do, however, pay Social Security payroll taxes. These lowest earners will also receive a cut. Mr. Bush's idea to return perhaps two to three percentage points of payroll taxes for individual investment accounts represents a tax cut because that money will become real and private property. In fact, the release of two to three percentage points of the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax represents a tax cut of 16% to 24% for those 30 million return-filing, nonpaying earners. So the final total for tax relief under the Bush proposal is 124 million people. That's 80 million more than under Vice President Gore's plan.

• The Bush tax cut favors lower-income people, even without considering the advantages of his Social Security proposals. That is, the percentage reduction in income tax is largest for lower-income people. How so? Simple. The Bush plan offers a reduction in the bottom rate to 10% from 15% and doubles the child credit to $1,000 from $500. This translates into relief with capital letters. It means, according to John Cogan, economist at the Hoover Institution and adviser to the Bush campaign, that the six million two-parent, two-children families earning less that $35,000 a year would have zero tax liability; that's a 100% reduction. Those families earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year would see an average reduction of 55%.

• The Bush tax cut does not favor the rich. This is not a flat tax or even a proportional cut, though such cuts would be more efficient in economic terms. Rather, higher income families get lower percentage reductions. Those earning $50,000 to $75,000 a year would see an average cut of 30%; families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would see an average cut of 18%; and those earning more than $100,000 would have an average reduction of 10%.

• The Bush tax cut, finally, does not require people to jump through government-approved hoops to get relief. Anyone who earns income gets a tax cut. Ipso facto.

Under Mr. Gore's plan, however, it's not so simple. For starters, taxpayers must engage in certain Gore-approved behavior to earn the right even to be considered. A taxpayer must either have a child in day care, have a child in college, be a beneficiary of an estate, have an ailing parent or be married.

Taxpayers in each of these anointed categories then must satisfy additional requirements. For example, their child must be in government-approved day care--no relief for stay-at-home moms or dads or those who drop their child at grandma's house--and, as the parents of a college student, they cannot earn above $120,000 a year (or, as a single parent, make more than $60,000 a year).

As for estate tax relief, the Gore plan is so complicated and restrictive that less than 1% of current heirs would qualify. Essentially, the estate has to qualify as a small business in which the decedent has to have "materially participated" in the business in five out of eight years preceding death, and the beneficiary must "materially participate" in the business five out of eight years following the owner's death for the next 10 years or the Internal Revenue Service could demand tax payment.

Ditto for taxpayers with an ailing parent. Under Mr. Gore's plan, the parent has to be certified by a doctor as unable to perform "one or more activities of daily living." This requirement specifies--believe it or not--"activities of daily living" as those prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is a level of bureaucratic oversight that even a New Democrat might find uncomfy.

Married couples also encounter maddening restraints. Tax credits are given only if the couple does not itemize deductions; unfortunately, however, 54% of married couples do indeed itemize (home mortgages and all that).

At any rate, fail one of these tests and Mr. Gore will not give you tax relief. In fact, more than 50 million taxpayers fail these tests, and thus more than half of the current 94 million taxpayers do not qualify for Mr. Gore's tax cuts. If the devil is in the details, Mr. Gore's tax proposals were crafted with a pitchfork.

Indeed, the Gore tax plan is really no tax plan at all; it's a mishmash of entitlement programs deploying the IRS to micromanage the American household. Under the Bush plan, by contrast, 123 million taxpayers would have their marginal rates lowered, with low- to moderate-income wage earners the biggest beneficiaries. Mr. Bush has offered a tax-reform plan worth the name.


Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
More - Just in case:

thought you might be interested in this article from OpinionJournal and forwarded it to you.

IT'S YOUR MONEY

Al Gore's 40% Tax Hike

The vice president's Social Security plan isn't as bad as it sounds. It's much, much worse.

BY SUSAN LEE

Last week I found myself trying to understand Al Gore's Social Security reform. (I know, it's an exciting life.) The plan comes in two parts. One does absolutely nothing about the impending boomer crunch except to make it worse, but the other made my hair frizz.
The scary part is called Retirement Savings Plus (although the money can also be used to pay for college or buy a house). It provides for individual savings accounts but--oh, mama--listen to how Mr. Gore wants to fund them.

As I read it, everybody and anybody who earns less than $100,000 a year could set aside some of their own money and then have government step in with a big fat subsidy to total $2,000 a year a person. Lower-income people could contribute up to $500 a year and have government match every dollar with $3. Middle-income people could set aside $1,000 and have government match every dollar with another dollar. And upper income people could plop down $1,500 and get 33 cents for every dollar.

Since this sounded like one gargantuan giveaway, I wondered--as you probably are--how much this would cost. Well, I phoned John Cogan, an economist at the Hoover Institution and the fastest numbers man in the West. Mr. Cogan is also advising the Bush campaign, so I figured he would have the figures. He was ready for me.

Using Internal Revenue Service data, Mr. Cogan estimates that more than 100 million people would be eligible and, if they all maxed out on government money (which of course is money that originally belonged to you and me), the total tab would come to $160 billion. That's correct--$160 billion for one year, or roughly 16% of current federal tax revenue.

I started making shrieking-type noises, but Mr. Cogan--who is fair and calm--pointed out that not every eligible person would participate. So, assuming the same rate as the rate for people who elect to participate in private pensions (about 75%), Mr. Cogan tap-tapped on his calculator for a new number. And it wasn't all that comforting, either--$120 billion, or 12% of federal tax revenue.

Is Mr. Gore out of his mind? Maybe. At the very least, he must be mathematically challenged. He has estimated the cost of his program at $35 billion.

So I asked Mr. Cogan what the deal was. Again, in his typically fair and calm fashion, he speculated that Mr. Gore, quite possibly, has not fully disclosed his restrictions on eligibility. A Gore aide did mention last week that people earning less than $5,000 a year, full-time students and retired people would be excluded. But, as Mr. Cogan noted, those exclusions aren't sufficient to even come close to $35 billion.

Instead, Mr. Cogan offered a scenario that the Gore camp may have in mind, given the fact that lower income people would have difficulty in ponying up $500 a year. Mr. Gore's $35 billion would be consistent with a plan in which only 5% of lower-income households and 50% of middle- and upper-income households participate.

Simply put, no matter how one slices and dices the numbers, the only way to get the numbers down to Mr. Gore's estimate is to exclude those who really need the boost.

But there's more. Remember the other part of Mr. Gore's Social Security reform? The one that just leaves the system unreformed? This part calls for government to use the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt, thereby saving on interest costs. These savings would be used to "buy" government bonds that would be put in a "lock box" until the boomers start to retire and the system faces bankruptcy. So how much are we talking about? Mr. Cogan's lowest estimate is $34 trillion.

More shrieking from me. But, as Mr. Cogan pointed out, the exact figure really doesn't matter. This scheme is just pie-in-the-sky, since no assets are created (printing up bonds is just a paper transaction). So what happens when the bill for Social Security becomes due? Mr. Cogan, still remarkably fair and calm, said that there were three choices: Either taxes would have to be raised by 25%, or benefits would have to be cut by 25%, or the bonds would have to be rolled over for another generation of taxpayers to redeem by--you guessed it--paying more taxes or enjoying less benefits.

In other words--and I was really squeaking here--Mr. Gore's retirement plan will generate a total tax increase of 37% to 41%? "Call it 40%," said Mr. Cogan.

I was speechless at this point, so Mr. Cogan added that he thought the whole thing was a liberal fantasy, and there was no way that Mr. Gore could enact such an enormous entitlement program. Well, I think Mr. Cogan is being just a little too fair and a little too calm. The inventor of the Internet has had one fantasy too many for my taste.


Ms. Lee, an economist, is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.


Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
How 'bout this for you PA friend? From post by PAX here on TFL:

From http://www.herald.com/content/tue/news/brknews/docs/069951.htm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida among top 10 states in gun shows, dealers

PITTSBURGH -- (AP) -- This may be one list that the Keystone State does not want to be part of.

A study by the Violence Policy Center of Washington D.C. ranks Pennsylvania among the top 10 in the number of gun shows, gun dealers, registered machine guns and firearms manufacturers.

The ``Gunland USA'' study says Pennsylvania ranks second in the country in number of gun shows, third in gun resellers, fourth in machine gun retailers, seventh in registered machine guns and ninth in the number of firearm manufacturers.

The rankings were based on data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Texas ranked No. 1 in all five categories. Pennsylvania, California, Florida and Ohio were the only other states to be in the top 10 in the five categories.

According to the study, as of January 2000, Pennsylvania had 3,581 licensed gun dealers and 16 pawnbrokers. There were 90 machine gun dealers, just over 13,000 machine guns and eight licensed gun makers in the state.

Pennsylvania also hosted 250 gun shows in 1998, the study said.

``The study gives a clear picture of each state's role in the proliferation of firearms in America,'' said Martin Langley, policy for the Center.

The findings came as litte surprise to an area gun store manager and the president of a gun show association.

With about a million hunters in Pennsylvania, it ``goes hand in hand'' that there are more gun dealers, said Ken Marshall, the manager of Antique Rifle Works in Greensburg.

Richard Vensel, the president of the Pennsylvania Gun Dealers Association, said patrons of gun shows are ``people out to protect our gun show rights.''

``We are not selling anything illegal, so how can it be illegal (to have gun shows)?'' he asked.

Vensel said he expects about 8,000 people to attend a gun show at a shopping mall this weekend in Greensburg, about 35 miles west of Pittsburgh.

The Center examines the role of guns in America, trends and patterns in gun violence, and the development of policies aimed at reducing gun-related deaths and injuries.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Courts ... have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun," said the Justice Department.[/quote]

This is the part that just gets me really hoppin' mad. Here is their support of that position, along with some of the actual language in the cases they cited:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress's power to "call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union," not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law" [/quote]

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942)
"The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution."[/quote]

"The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973)
"It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution." [/quote]

No, it's not given - it's guaranteed not to be infringed. But I can't find that case.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976)
"We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment." [/quote]

"Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that a submachine gun in the hands of an individual "sedentary militia" member would have any, much less a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Miller, supra, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Thus we conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment which would (p.107)bar his prosecution and conviction for violating 26 U.S.C. §5861(d)."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ouilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982)
"The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."[/quote]

"All argue, however, that the second amendment applies to state and local governments and that the second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms exists, not only to assist in the common defense, but also to protect the individual."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992)
"The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon." [/quote]

"Wilbur Hale appeals his conviction of thirteen counts of possession of a machine gun" -- 'nuff said.


zook


[This message has been edited by zook (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
zook,

I think Curshank (sp) is the case you are wanting. Funny, the education level is SOOOOO lacking that people think they can get away with saying one of the 10 Amendments don't confer a right. That somehow the first 10 are 'granted' - the VERY fear the framers had - that if they listed the protected rights, that people would think they were granted and LIMITED. Damn shame.

No, the 2nd doesn't grant, it protects. It does not 'provide for' anything. It cannonizes a right that pre-exists the Constitution. I have a 2nd Amendment right AND a 9th Amendment right to my firearms.

Morton Grove, I don't think was argued on 2nd grounds, but rather 14th grounds as it related to 2nd - not sure though.

Miller, and I will have to check, may just have addressed the weapon and not membership in a militia as anti's try to twist.

madison
 
I found this article on the NRAs efforts to promote hunting from the San Fransisco Gate news:

"NRA takes a shot

Hunters have tried to enter other parks, too. The National Rifle Association in 1986 sued the Interior Department, arguing that hunting and trapping was consistent with the park's mandate to conserve wildlife. U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., denied the suit."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/10/huntingsun.dtl


Keep on 'em KAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top