chairboy...ACLU

[lazs2]

the ninth circuit told you that the supremes ruling in the miller case meant that it was a collective right?  Or... the ninth circuit told you what you want to hear so you are gonna ignore the miller case?

lazs

[midnight Target]

in Miller, the Supreme Court wrote that the “obvious purpose” of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of state militias and that the guarantee of that right “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” What could be a clearer rejection of the individual rights view? Even Senator Feingold, who indicated his own personal agreement with the individual rights view, conceded in questioning Judge Roberts, that the Supreme Court in Miller “indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right."

Like I said over and over... People of good conscience can disagree.

[Charon]

edit: not worth it anymore

[Toad]

THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.

Plainly enough except for a bunch of deceitful lawyers of "good conscience".

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Charon
edit: not worth it anymore

Does this mean I win the internet?











Nevermind... I'm going out shooting.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by SaburoS
How'd it go with the double barrel sawed off?
Was it as accurate?
Aimed fire?

Now because you've fired some shotguns, doesn't make you an expert if you've not fired a sawed off double barrel.

And yes, you'd be coming out of left field if you haven't.

And if you live in the SF bay area, let me know the next time you're going shooting. I'd like to see nicely grouped shot pattern from a short barrel, unchoked, shot off the hip @10yards.

We're not talking bird hunting. We're talking lethal shot grouping capable of stopping an enemy.

Then we'll compare it to my SigSauer P220-45 and L1a1 (with it's 16.25" Congo front end).

We'll set up multiple targets/distances.

Show me how a bouble barreled sawed off is better.

So Sub, when we going shooting! I wana shoot an L1A1!

=D

[rshubert]

Originally posted by SaburoS
How'd it go with the double barrel sawed off?
Was it as accurate?
Aimed fire?

Now because you've fired some shotguns, doesn't make you an expert if you've not fired a sawed off double barrel.

And yes, you'd be coming out of left field if you haven't.

And if you live in the SF bay area, let me know the next time you're going shooting. I'd like to see nicely grouped shot pattern from a short barrel, unchoked, shot off the hip @10yards.

We're not talking bird hunting. We're talking lethal shot grouping capable of stopping an enemy.

Then we'll compare it to my SigSauer P220-45 and L1a1 (with it's 16.25" Congo front end).

We'll set up multiple targets/distances.

Show me how a bouble barreled sawed off is better.

Saburo, I would GLADLY put my 18" double barreled "sawed off"(crescent arms 1910, btw) 12 guage up against your L1A1 at 10 yards, and I would not feel under-armed in any way.  Get yourself one of those russian-made coach guns, pull the bead off the front of the rib, and learn to point shoot.

At 50 yards, you'd win, probably. At 25, who knows?  A shotgun is an ideal CLOSE IN weapon.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by rshubert
Saburo, I would GLADLY put my 18" double barreled "sawed off"(crescent arms 1910, btw) 12 guage up against your L1A1 at 10 yards, and I would not feel under-armed in any way.  Get yourself one of those russian-made coach guns, pull the bead off the front of the rib, and learn to point shoot.

At 50 yards, you'd win, probably. At 25, who knows?  A shotgun is an ideal CLOSE IN weapon.

I would not feel a disadvantage from point-blank to 500-700 meters with my L1a1.
16.25" barrel Congo front end. 20-round magazines. .308 win (7.62 x 51 mm NATO) round.
You'd lose. (check out ballistics)

Now if we were going bird hunting hell, I'd like practically ANY shotgun over mine.

There's a reason that no military in the world has the shotgun (of anykind) as their main weapon.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
So Sub, when we going shooting! I wana shoot an L1A1!

=D

Well I've got an important wedding I've got to "shoot"
Want to go in about a month or two?
You're going to really like the Rem 700 PSS also.

[Toad]

The don't have 9mm pistols, M249 Saws or M24 sniper rifle as a "main weapon" either. But all of them have their place in the military and are in "common use".

Just like military shotguns and soon the LSS shotgun pistol.

I have got to get me one o' them things!

[lazs2]

mt... I believe that what charon is saying is that there is ample evidense to prove that the miller decission admitted that the second was an individual right.... miller was an individual and if he were being tried as a part of the militia...then it is a personal right... so long as you fit the 16 years old and able bodied description of militia...  You are looking at the "collective" in a very broad sense.... that of the "militia" being the collective... that is like saying "males" is collective rather than individual... the qualifications for militia or male or... to be part of the collective... are allmost nonexistent...

But... I would be glad to agree that it is a collective right to the extent that it covers all able bodied men over the age of 16.... wouldn't hurt to lower that age at some time tho..

And.... for all who think that maybe the 9th circuit court is on to something.... The 9th is the most overturned court in the history of the United States.... it is a sick joke... it is overturned  76% of the time (compared to average circuits of about 24%)   in one year it had 27 of 28 decisions overturned...  It is a liberal court out of control because of two judges appointed by Klinton and one by Karter.   I believe that is why MTs wife makes him listen to them so much....

they overturned the vote of the citizens of Arizona who voted unanimously to make english the official language of the state.

the voted to stop the recall election of the gray one (gray davis) in Kalifornia but were..... overturned.  

lazs

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Well I've got an important wedding I've got to "shoot"
Want to go in about a month or two?
You're going to really like the Rem 700 PSS also.

Month or two would be great. I am a bit light on guns right now since most are in WA, only two I have here are an old 1911 and my Sig 220.

Ill spring for ammo though!

[Charon]

One more I guess, since things are stalled at work for now. Here's the other side of the 9th court ruling.

Entire 9th Circuit Ducks Judge Reinhardt's Ricochet,
Could Hit the Supreme Court Docket

A deeply divided U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week refused to review a controversial ruling from a three-judge panel led by Judge Stephen Reinhardt that held the Second Amendment protects only a collective -- rather than an individual -- right to keep and bear arms.  Consequently, unless the Supreme Court takes up the case, not only will the result leave standing a California ban on semiautomatic weapons, but it will also leave intact the panel's historical contortions concluding that the Second Amendment "was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

The 9th Circuit's decision not to hear the case en banc (as a whole) came over the dissent of six judges, several of whom vigorously noted the explicit conflict between the panel's collective rights view and the individual rights approach taken by the 5th Circuit in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 901 (2002), and supported by the current administration.  Four of the dissenters, led by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, argued that the case should be reheard in order to rectify the conflict.  "Where the Constitution establishes a right of the people, no organ of the government, including the courts, can legitimately take that right away from the people," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.

These dissenters also noted that Judge Reinhardt and the other judges on his panel -- who routinely take generous approaches to other parts of the Constitution -- read the Second Amendment with absurd restrictiveness.  "If we used the panel's methodology, taking each word according a right in the Bill of Rights in the narrowest possible sense, then we would limit the freedom of 'speech' protected by the First Amendment to oral declamations," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.

Even noted liberal Judge Harry Pregerson disagreed with the Reinhardt panel's insistence that the Second Amendment was designed only to protect state-regulated militias.  "The panel misses the mark by interpreting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, rather than as an individual right," he wrote.  "Because the panel's decision abrogates a constitutional right, this case should have been reheard en banc."

But the strongest words of reprimand came from Judge Alex Kozinski, who fled Romania under the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu.  Writing from his own experience, Judge Kozinski explained that history could have been vastly different had American slaves or European Jews been able to arm themselves and fight back against the governments that oppressed them.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," he wrote in dissent.  "However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Judge Kozinski also made special note of the interpretive inconsistency of the judges on the Reinhardt panel given their usual proclivity to find individual rights when the Constitution uses the words "people" or "person."  "Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms," he wrote.

The refusal of the 9th Circuit to rehear the case, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), clears the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not confronted the protections of Second Amendment for more than 60 years.

BTW, Finegold stated a personal opinion on Miller. [edit: he is actually fairly moderate on guns, though there are some notable exceptions in his history]. If you read the actual testimony, Robert’s disagrees that Miller clearly states it to be a collective right (but in a nice way).

Charon

[Edbert]

Just wait, with Roberts sworn in as CJ-SCOTUS dubya will get one more consitutionalist on the court and we might get a ruling for once

[lazs2]

yep... it's time to quit screwing around... let's get this all out in the open..  let's have some SC ruling (after dubya pumps up the court with honest men).

So MT.... if the SC heard the case for the second.... How would you want the ruling to go?

lazs