OK, I've had enough...........
From: "jmarch"
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 "sooth-
ing noises" about guns he feels he has to make on his web-
site 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?
#### YES they are. The 5th Circuit is probably gonna
decide in favor of Mr. Emerson and support Cummings' per-
sonal 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? #### 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...play-
ing sneaky with those SOBs isn't a moral sin, it's a damned
imperative.
Vote Bush!
Jim
===================================
The Second Amendment Police Department (in Cyber-
Space) www.2ampd.net To Protect & Serve the Indi-
vidual Rights of All Citizens!
From: "jmarch"
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 "sooth-
ing noises" about guns he feels he has to make on his web-
site 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?
#### YES they are. The 5th Circuit is probably gonna
decide in favor of Mr. Emerson and support Cummings' per-
sonal 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? #### 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...play-
ing sneaky with those SOBs isn't a moral sin, it's a damned
imperative.
Vote Bush!
Jim
===================================
The Second Amendment Police Department (in Cyber-
Space) www.2ampd.net To Protect & Serve the Indi-
vidual Rights of All Citizens!
Bush has my vote, No second thoughts 