Title 18 sec 241(Conspiracy against rights)...lets flesh this out

Mendo...

Is that so bad? Think about it...just as many people believe RICO is unconstitutional. But the important thing is that it is and would be an open, out front direct political confrontation. No more back door action, no more sub-rosa.
They wanted this war, they pushed for it, lets open up the whole can of worms...once exposed it will take years and years to sort it out....all in the open and energies will be directed at sorting, not new sneaky controls.
Fix it or burn it down and rebuild.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
If anyone decides to sue under this act, I will donate what little I can afford. I'm retired on a fixed income, but will send what I can.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Banzai, banzai, banzai!

A better one would be:

Tora Tora Tora!

Go for the Jugular! Hit THEM in the purse strings!

Make this a class action suit - I will add my signature! Having to PAY for CCW PERMIT -When carying a weapon is a RIGHT granted by LAW - and yet I have to PAY for it!?!

Im in... What do I do?

------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
If HCI was really trying to make this a safer place to live, they would be trying to ban cars, only need to be 16,no background check, and with as many guns as I have, I don't have one with a 4000 pound bullet that I can steer or backup...Don't tell anyone, but the thing with HCI and guns, well I think it is personal


---snoman---
 
Kodiac; Good point.You have been directly and financially impacted by unconstitutional anti-gun leglislation.We all have in the increased costs and inconveniences we have had to endure.
Goody Goody now we collect.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
A little strange when you think of it, history does repeat itself...we are once again trying to fight our way from the British...

---snoman---
 
I have a question for the group.
What are the two (2) biggest fears the pro and anti firearms groups have? Think about it for a while.

**********
Time's up. The first fear is that we lose the whole "shooting match" because that would put them out of business and they could not request monies to continue the fight against or for the anti-gun laws. The second fear is that we win the fight for the same reasons.

I am convinced that there are pro-firearms ownership groups that hope and pray that the Supremes don't ever decide in the gun owner's favor and state that the 2nd Amendment means that the people have the right to keep and bear arm unhindered by the fedgoons and/or the states. I think that they want to keep the things the way they are to justify their existance.

Just think, what could they do after such a SC decision? They could not send monthly newletters warning of problems and asking for donations. "Hell, Knuckle head, the Superems decided that there are no valid federal/state gun laws and whacked those that proposed 'em pretty good. Why should I send you any money? I'm gonna use the money for ammo."

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
Please read (www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm )
I read it on glocktalk, if it is true, why is the 2nd amendment even an issue???


---snoman---
 
Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment sent this reply to my query to him on this issue:

Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>
> Nope. The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to lobby
> for all sorts of legislation, even legislation that a court may eventually
> hold unconstitutional (which of course is unfortunately far from certain for
> gun control legislation).
>


This is my reply:

>Mr. Volokh,
>
> Your reply to my query, while disappointing, is appreciated. I thought
> that would be the answer. Is there any way to respond in kind to the
> tactics of these organizations in the courts?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Byron Quick
 
1. The first amendment does NOT, so far as I know, guarantee a right to file frivolous lawsuits with the express intent of bankrupting the defendant even if he wins the lawsuit. So the people behind the anti-gun lawsuits would appear to be fair game.
2. The first amendment does NOT protect the Clinton admistration's ILLEGAL activities furthering gun control, such as compiling centralized gun records in violation of the 1968 gun control act, or issuing executive orders in violation of the Constitution.
3. Nothing, not our "allies" in Congress, nor the courts and the Second amendment, can protect us indefinately if the public really does turn against us. Whereas if it turns decisively FOR us, we can't really lose. Public relations isn't just A way to win, ultimately it's the ONLY way to win; All else is just stalling tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top