Read this topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter snoman
- Start date
Jeff Thomas
New member
OK, I'll bite. Who would fight for their rights in court? Well, I will if I have to. My preference is to avoid bankruptcy, however. So, I'll plan to maintain a reasonably low profile, keep my nose clean, voice what I believe are reasonable and moral positions on the RKBA and so on, and support those groups that observe the same beliefs. And, cruise TFL.
Bill Gates, OTOH, can go to court anytime he wishes, I suppose.
Why do you ask?
Bill Gates, OTOH, can go to court anytime he wishes, I suppose.
Why do you ask?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
GLV-
Great point. This is a process to be approached with the utmost caution.
snoman-
Stop holding out. What's the plan?
Rich
Great point. This is a process to be approached with the utmost caution.
snoman-
Stop holding out. What's the plan?
Rich
Sorry all, was e-mailing.
anyway, I was talking with cornered rat and we were wondering about turning the whole debate into a discrimination lawsuit.
The whole reason that we are " Targets " is that we own guns...
And here is the kicker, I was looking into the NAACP, ACLU and the Gay-Lesbian movement for help. It could be a win-win situation with the NAACP, if they do , more money and legal help, if they don't, well very bad publicity for their lawsuit against gun manufactures.As far as the Gay- Lasbian thing, they kind of went thruogh the same thing as us. These are just ideas that need help and refinement, and I can't think of a better place to get it than here!!!
---snoman---
anyway, I was talking with cornered rat and we were wondering about turning the whole debate into a discrimination lawsuit.
The whole reason that we are " Targets " is that we own guns...
And here is the kicker, I was looking into the NAACP, ACLU and the Gay-Lesbian movement for help. It could be a win-win situation with the NAACP, if they do , more money and legal help, if they don't, well very bad publicity for their lawsuit against gun manufactures.As far as the Gay- Lasbian thing, they kind of went thruogh the same thing as us. These are just ideas that need help and refinement, and I can't think of a better place to get it than here!!!
---snoman---
Rich Lucibella
Staff
You are not going to get anywhere with a discrimination suit until you become a recognized minority...read that as popularly supported.
You can not be popularly supported until you get the media on your side as a downtrodden subgroup.
Rich
You can not be popularly supported until you get the media on your side as a downtrodden subgroup.
Rich
A lawyer told me a number of years ago that, the law is not necessarily what is in the books but whatever a JUDGE says it is at the time. This concept is called discretion.
I'm more inclined to fight for our rights in a way that already acknowledges their existence (which they do) not in a way that asks a Judge to rule on whether they exist.
This leaves open that discretion thing and a ruling(possibly not in our favor) we would have to live with for a long time to come.
I'm more inclined to fight for our rights in a way that already acknowledges their existence (which they do) not in a way that asks a Judge to rule on whether they exist.
This leaves open that discretion thing and a ruling(possibly not in our favor) we would have to live with for a long time to come.
Jeff Thomas
New member
I think Rich covers that pretty well. How do you think people would react if someone created a NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People - don't go crazy on this, it's just an example - I'm like Groucho - wouldn't want to be a member of a group that would have someone like me as a member 
).
Discrimination status only applies for some groups, and indeed, that often depends on the media.
Why do you think this would work? And, I believe the only 2nd Amendment case that went to the Supreme Court was not a victory for the RKBA, no? (DC?)
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 22, 1999).]
).Discrimination status only applies for some groups, and indeed, that often depends on the media.
Why do you think this would work? And, I believe the only 2nd Amendment case that went to the Supreme Court was not a victory for the RKBA, no? (DC?)
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 22, 1999).]
If Cliton is not guilty, anything is doable.
anyway this is just a starting point, and the exect reason that it was posted like this. My original thinking was Just getting the gun debate to court, that in and of itself might not be a good idea, but will get media attention that gives us a chance to give our side again, but what i would really like is to put the anti's on the defensive. and one of the best ways I came up with is to make this a discrimination or rasicst issue, that seems to get peoples attention in this politicly correct land that we live in
---snoman---
anyway this is just a starting point, and the exect reason that it was posted like this. My original thinking was Just getting the gun debate to court, that in and of itself might not be a good idea, but will get media attention that gives us a chance to give our side again, but what i would really like is to put the anti's on the defensive. and one of the best ways I came up with is to make this a discrimination or rasicst issue, that seems to get peoples attention in this politicly correct land that we live in
---snoman---
I'm taking the first steps now. The way the Calif. constitution is written, it's VERY possible. See my post on "fax to my county supervisor" - that went out today.
What I'm trying for is to prove I *can* win a suite, try and get the County gov't to convince the Sheriff to roll over and fix things before the county loses big.
Jim March
What I'm trying for is to prove I *can* win a suite, try and get the County gov't to convince the Sheriff to roll over and fix things before the county loses big.
Jim March
Jeff:
Us vs Miller....only 2nd amendment case heard since 1939. Not only was it not a victory, but it was bad law and faulty jurisprudence based on admittedly erroneous assumptions. Because of this particular case, no others have been heard because Miller would have to be reviewed before what ever 2nd amendment case was being heard at the particular time.
Miller is the only Federal "precedent"....ALL CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS HINGE ON IT.
It is easier to blame dead guys for something they did 60 yrs ago and let it ride than have to face the people now and do it again.
You all have to realize this: it is highly unlikely that another 2nd amendment case will be heard in our lifetime. It is not in "their" interests to open that up. I may be wrong, but a case based singularly on guns won't be heard, other Constitutional issues must also be involved. BUT, they are rights established in the Constitution and right now thats the best weapon we have.
Like Rich and others said...you have to be part of a sympathetic minority that you have no choice being in: Gay/Lesbians; racial/ethnic minoritys; physically handicapped, etc. Tobacco smokers, pot smokers, kiddie porn fans, gun owners, gamblers, alcoholics etc are not sympathetic. In the public's concensus, the above are "aquired" tastes,problems,perversions. Again, realize that in a large part of society's judgement and opinion...we are no better than child molesters and porners.
************************************
Sorry...I didn't mean to imply snoman's idea has no merit...its just not a singularity, but as ancillary support it has a great deal of merit
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
[This message has been edited by DC (edited February 22, 1999).]
Us vs Miller....only 2nd amendment case heard since 1939. Not only was it not a victory, but it was bad law and faulty jurisprudence based on admittedly erroneous assumptions. Because of this particular case, no others have been heard because Miller would have to be reviewed before what ever 2nd amendment case was being heard at the particular time.
Miller is the only Federal "precedent"....ALL CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS HINGE ON IT.
It is easier to blame dead guys for something they did 60 yrs ago and let it ride than have to face the people now and do it again.
You all have to realize this: it is highly unlikely that another 2nd amendment case will be heard in our lifetime. It is not in "their" interests to open that up. I may be wrong, but a case based singularly on guns won't be heard, other Constitutional issues must also be involved. BUT, they are rights established in the Constitution and right now thats the best weapon we have.
Like Rich and others said...you have to be part of a sympathetic minority that you have no choice being in: Gay/Lesbians; racial/ethnic minoritys; physically handicapped, etc. Tobacco smokers, pot smokers, kiddie porn fans, gun owners, gamblers, alcoholics etc are not sympathetic. In the public's concensus, the above are "aquired" tastes,problems,perversions. Again, realize that in a large part of society's judgement and opinion...we are no better than child molesters and porners.
************************************
Sorry...I didn't mean to imply snoman's idea has no merit...its just not a singularity, but as ancillary support it has a great deal of merit
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
[This message has been edited by DC (edited February 22, 1999).]
what about freedom of religion, we all have the choice of religion we want to belong to, Gay and Lesbian have to choose if they went same sex or not, yes it is a choice,and as far as being gay, who is to say that the reason that we like guns is a little nurological thing in our brains, where have I heard that before
---snoman---
---snoman---
Jeff Thomas
New member
Well, the anti-self defense folks accuse of use worshiping guns, no? Maybe you've got something there with the religion angle.
DC, thanks for the refresher. I didn't recall it as good news.
One mistake in this area is to assume you can approach this with logic.
DC, thanks for the refresher. I didn't recall it as good news.
One mistake in this area is to assume you can approach this with logic.
Jeff Thomas
New member
Well, the anti-self defense folks accuse us of worshiping guns, no? Maybe you've got something there with the religion angle.
DC, thanks for the refresher. I didn't recall it as good news.
One mistake in this area is to assume you can approach this topic with logic. We're talking politics and 'play for keeps' judicial work here. I think DC is right on this one.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 23, 1999).]
DC, thanks for the refresher. I didn't recall it as good news.
One mistake in this area is to assume you can approach this topic with logic. We're talking politics and 'play for keeps' judicial work here. I think DC is right on this one.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 23, 1999).]
OK, guys, the way to win is: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Or rather, violations of same by those administering discretionary carry or ownership permits. That includes the Fed's handling of Class3 permits, see also the 14th amendment.
California's state constitution is GREAT in this area. Article 1, section 7B can refer to favoritism on a "class" or "elitist" basis. I've been examining the state constitutions of other states, concentrating on states with major amounts of discrimination. What I've got so far:
New Jersey: *Nothing* in the state constitution about "equal protection under the law". Jesus. There's still the 14th but...that's shaky because so far, it's been applied almost exclusively by religion, race, gender or other "stuff you can't help" like being disabled.
California: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." Well gee wiz, that seems to work even if I ain't a crippled black lesbian high priestess, now don't it?
Illinois: their entire website is down. Sheeeeit.
New York: there's an equal rights clause but it's specifically race/religion/gender based, doesn't cover "general favoritism and elitism" such as in Calif.
Massachusets: BINGO! The language in this ol' pup is ARCHAIC as hell but there's something COOL in here, if anything it's better than California. Get a load of this:
"Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and
exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the
public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural."
LOOK AT THE WORDS ABOVE, GUYS!!!
This is the original repudiation of the entire idea of an "aristocracy". Mass. regularly issues concealed weapons permits to the wealty, the politically connected, etc. The California version of this is very similar, if worded in less baroque fashion.
I really, REALLY hope somebody from Mass is seeing this! See also: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm
Colorado: took me *forever* to find this ugly sucker, unfortunately I can't see anything as useful as the CA/MA stuff. It's at: http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/ColoCon/iscolocn.htm if anybody wants to look for themselves.
This website lists all state main web pages; it's generally a snap to get the constitution from each: http://www.amercris.org/usalist.htm - or this one's even better: http://www.legalbrief.com/states.htm
This map will show exactly where the current "discretionary permit states" are. Hawaii is in some ways a "special case" in that from what I understand *NOBODY* gets a permit, no matter what. Damn. That might cover 'em from one of us trying this sort of "equal protection suite" trick: http://www.moccw.org/map.html
Tips on finding these "jewels" in state constitutions: they seem to be clustered "early" in the documents, in whatever passes for a "bill of rights" equivelent.
Hit the books, guys, we're onto something here.
Jim March
California's state constitution is GREAT in this area. Article 1, section 7B can refer to favoritism on a "class" or "elitist" basis. I've been examining the state constitutions of other states, concentrating on states with major amounts of discrimination. What I've got so far:
New Jersey: *Nothing* in the state constitution about "equal protection under the law". Jesus. There's still the 14th but...that's shaky because so far, it's been applied almost exclusively by religion, race, gender or other "stuff you can't help" like being disabled.
California: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." Well gee wiz, that seems to work even if I ain't a crippled black lesbian high priestess, now don't it?
Illinois: their entire website is down. Sheeeeit.
New York: there's an equal rights clause but it's specifically race/religion/gender based, doesn't cover "general favoritism and elitism" such as in Calif.
Massachusets: BINGO! The language in this ol' pup is ARCHAIC as hell but there's something COOL in here, if anything it's better than California. Get a load of this:
"Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and
exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the
public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural."
LOOK AT THE WORDS ABOVE, GUYS!!!
This is the original repudiation of the entire idea of an "aristocracy". Mass. regularly issues concealed weapons permits to the wealty, the politically connected, etc. The California version of this is very similar, if worded in less baroque fashion.
I really, REALLY hope somebody from Mass is seeing this! See also: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm
Colorado: took me *forever* to find this ugly sucker, unfortunately I can't see anything as useful as the CA/MA stuff. It's at: http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/ColoCon/iscolocn.htm if anybody wants to look for themselves.
This website lists all state main web pages; it's generally a snap to get the constitution from each: http://www.amercris.org/usalist.htm - or this one's even better: http://www.legalbrief.com/states.htm
This map will show exactly where the current "discretionary permit states" are. Hawaii is in some ways a "special case" in that from what I understand *NOBODY* gets a permit, no matter what. Damn. That might cover 'em from one of us trying this sort of "equal protection suite" trick: http://www.moccw.org/map.html
Tips on finding these "jewels" in state constitutions: they seem to be clustered "early" in the documents, in whatever passes for a "bill of rights" equivelent.
Hit the books, guys, we're onto something here.
Jim March
Folks couldn't help but to add that the only things a person can't change are race, gender & a disability. You the individual choose religion, sexual preference, or anything else. Even though I wish (make that an I know) gun owners were a minority.
As most seem to agree that for a minority status the "media" would be needed for that to be successful.
To tell the Federal govt. that a states law supercedes their laws and/or decisions would be like your children telling you how you will act while in their room. Though apparently some states have still stuck with the idea of all men are created equal(CA/MA). Unless some anti just hasn't gotten around to screwing that up yet.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not quiting or trying to burst any bubbles but the fact is until we make this a country "for the people, by the peope" we just have to keep thinking on how to win the game with te rules that are there.
As most seem to agree that for a minority status the "media" would be needed for that to be successful.
To tell the Federal govt. that a states law supercedes their laws and/or decisions would be like your children telling you how you will act while in their room. Though apparently some states have still stuck with the idea of all men are created equal(CA/MA). Unless some anti just hasn't gotten around to screwing that up yet.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not quiting or trying to burst any bubbles but the fact is until we make this a country "for the people, by the peope" we just have to keep thinking on how to win the game with te rules that are there.