Read this topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I come from the right state. GO JESSE!!!
Are you willing to vote for me???
---snoman---

[This message has been edited by snoman (edited February 24, 1999).]
 
I do not like this "loop hole" mentality. The solution is not to trick or maneuver our way into the right to keep and bare arms. What greater statement can we make in our laws or courts or what more profound and lasting action can we take then to establish an amendment to the Constitution to protect our right to be armed? IT HAS BEEN DONE. The right exists and is presently ours! Right now! and it has been all of our lives. The battle lies in forcing our elected officials to do their DUTY and uphold the Constitution of the United States and to write no law that violates that Constitution. Bad elected officials appoint bad judges. Bad judges uphold unconstitutional laws and dismiss good ones. They do not tear down our Constitution but they ignore what they do not like. The cowardliness and incompetence of our present Congress and Senate to perform their sworn obligation is overwhelmingly obvious with the recent impeachment proceedings. How do you expect this crowd to bow to a law when they willfully ignore the Constitution? There is no quick fix to this; their will never be rest for our side. We must resolve that we will always need to be attentive and active. We must put our recourses into campaigning to elect the right men to office and to remove those who ignore or falter at their duty. Some of us should probably run for office. If we allow the current infestation of weak principled elected officials to continue year after year we may find that one-day our only alternative to remove those who ignore the Constitution will be to invoke the first half of the 2nd amendment. I would rather see them voted out.
 
Scott, you're right...except that by design, history and even current enforement, most gun control laws are discriminatory.

And *that* is against the constitution - fighting via THAT route is no "loophole".

Jim March
 
Yes it is discrimination … but the law that prohibits being armed is far more a violation of the 2nd amendment. Settle this argument (2nd amendment) and discrimination is not a factor. The discrimination angle allows the other side to still ignore the right to keep and bare arms, as all they have to do to counter this move is level the playing field and ban all gun ownership.
 
The Libertarian Party, the third largest in the USA, is a strong proponent of second amendment rights. Check them out at www.lp.org . The Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the decline in our country and can not be trusted to reverse the damage they have already done.
 
Much as I tried to avoid referring to any parties on my site, I soon found out that Reform/Libertarian parites were a click away from most of my sources. The DFL/GOP were, by contrast, usually mentioned in the same breath as other national socialists.

Guess it's loonitarians for me...though I wish they actually bothered to campaign in Minnesota...I didn't even know who their cadidate was till I did some digging.

PS: Q is telling me that they did campaign...and fielded a "pro-life" candidate (not exactly in life with most libertarian doctrines)

[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited February 28, 1999).]
 
I am the named Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in NJ on behalf of applicants for handgun purcahse permits in seven counties of NJ. We have been charged for background checks ( this pre-dates Brady) in these seven counties unlawfully. We want our money back and an injucntion against future unlawfull fees.

[This message has been edited by MisterAl (edited March 20, 1999).]
 
MisterAl-
Welcome. You're our kinda people!
I, for one, would really like to hear more. Please consider starting a new thread on this action...how it got started; how it gets funded; how it's going. This is a good thing.
Rich Lucibella
 
Well, as of right now , there isn't really much to discuss. The case is in discovery, which is very time consuming. Nothing eats up time like civil litigation. There is a conference set for April, and maybe something will come out of it. All of you other shooting sports enthusiasts, and second amendment supporters should thank your lucky stars that you don't live in New Jersey. This state is very hostile to gun owners. Lots of liberals from NYC and Philly moved to NJ in the late 60's and 70's, bringing their political stupidity with them. But I want to fight for what I believe to be right, and I don't want to cut and run to a better state. Regards, Al NRA endowment member , GOA life member Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.---Edmund Burke

[This message has been edited by MisterAl (edited March 28, 1999).]
 
Hey, why not file suit on the real basis of our complaint: Conspiracy to obstruct the exercise of a civil right? (The RKBA) We all know that THAT is what is going on here, and the antis have been indiscrete enought to admit it on more occasions than I can count.
I've heard all the arguments about how the Supreme court might rule against us on the 2nd amendment if they got a chance, but, blast it, what's the point in having the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution if we're too chicken to bring it up in court?
 
If you haven't already seen it:
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw

I'm actually making progress. There'll be another MAJOR update in about a week to 10 days, I've got a serious breakthrough going involving perjury. In addition to the equal protection issues, these clowns haven't even been TRYING to obey the laws on how they should issue, and they're all grossly contradicting each other. It's hysterical. There's a "trap" laid now that should lead to further perjury within a week.

Jim March
 
Hey does anyone know how the justices in the supreme court have voted for constitutional rights in the past. We can't teach God in schools because its a religion but a few years ago they ruled atheism a religion and we still teach their ideas in school. I just wonder what they would do with a case like this.
 
There is a hearing in Trenton on 4-9-1999 (notice how Y2K compliant I am) , and I will do my best to observe.In a class action, the named plaintiff is really just a figurehead, but I will report back to this thread if there is anything worth talking about. Regards, Al NRA endowment memeber, GOA life member

[This message has been edited by MisterAl (edited April 04, 1999).]
 
A gentleman by the name of Don Hamrick has already drawn up a proposed lawsuit based on conspiracy to deny us our rights. I posted the full text of the suit on this board under Gun Control v. U.S. Code. It makes for interesting reading and he has some good points. I would support such a suit as he has proposed.

Richard
 
The pre-trial conference on the 9th went pretty well. Our judge doesn't have any class action experience, but I think she is willing to learn. Her off- the-cuff remarks were favorable to our case on the merits, but she is nervous about imposing a money judgement against the counties that unlawfully imposed a fee. She seems willing to entertain a motion for summary judgement, which is good. What that means is, that the judge does not believe that any facts are in dispute, and the case boils down to a legal question, not a fact-finding. This is very helpful for us. I will keep you informed as the case unfolds. Regards, Al NRA endowment member , GOA life member PS-- Why am I a junior member? I am 48 years of age!

[This message has been edited by MisterAl (edited April 11, 1999).]
 
Gentlemen. I think we may be barking up the wrong tree. We all know what the Second Amendment says. Do you know what is in Title 10 of the US Code? Buried in that mess of Federal Law is the legal description of the militia. The official militia, the "unofficial" militia, etc. We all know the official militia is the National Guard, no arguement there. But the unofficial militia? What's this? All able bodied men from ages (if I remember correctly) 17 to 45, if they have never served in the military. If you have served, up to age 60. Now I have done my military time, so have a working knowledge of our battle rifle. I'm also 60, so I am out of it for all practical purposes. But it is the none military people that concern me. They have no training in the weaponry of this country. They are also, by law unable to have this weapon in their possession for training. It says "A well REGULATED MILITIA etc. Regulated in this context, I believe, means WELL TRAINED. The National Guard is trained, but the others? No. Maybe someone who is versed in Constitutional Law would like to look into this further. It is my firm belief that because of Title 10, and the Second Amendment, all anti-gun laws are ILLEGAL!. Sorry for the shouts, but I am as Pro-gun as Slick Willie is Anti-gun. You know, Chairman Mao once said that power came from the barrel of a gun. Slick Willie wants only his side to have guns. Just a point to ponder.
Paul B.

COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
My class action suit, Alan O. Dixler v. Counties of Camden, et al, continues along. The attorneys for the seven counties of NJ that illegally impose a fee to do the background checks required by NJ state law are dragging their feet about supplying information to plaintiff's counsel. This stuff takes a lot of time. We can't be in a rush. Regards, Al NRA endowment member , GOA life member

[This message has been edited by MisterAl (edited May 21, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top