The author, Mike Cox, is the attorney general of Michigan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, November 23, 2007.

Joe Gwinn

On Nov 23, 7:35 am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
The author, Mike Cox, is the attorney general of Michigan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, November 23, 2007.

Joe Gwinn

Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:52:53 -0800 (PST), Gerry wrote:

Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

What, decide that it's a state issue and no a federal one? I don't
think there's any chance of that.

Gerry wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:35 am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
The author, Mike Cox, is the attorney general of Michigan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, November 23, 2007.

Joe Gwinn

Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.


Affirming your property isn't yours if someone else wants it to put
something on it that generates higher taxes which is considered a public
good.

It would seem natural to snuf out gun rights in case someone gets some silly
idea of standing his ground on his ground.

Wes

On Dave Hinz wrote:
Gerry wrote:
[...]
Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

What, decide that it's a state issue and no a federal one? I don't
think there's any chance of that.

Well, until the Second is incorporated under the Fourteenth, that's
largely the way things stand now. The Feds have some gun control in
effect (passed and/or upheld under their tax and interstate commerce
authority), but so far they've demonstrated a "hands off" attitude
regarding State/local restrictions. Look at Morton Grove.

Since the appellant isn't a resident of a State, I'd think that the
Supremes could easily avoid the incorporation issue, leaving the
States free reign to pass their own gun control legislation, but still
setting a precedent for DC and the territories.

SCOTUS doesn't always adhere to doctrine of deciding their cases as
narrowly as possible (IMHO), so I think that this case in particular
is something of a crap shoot, with regards to implications for most of
the country.

That said, I think that there's a fair chance that they will address
incorporation. A lot of people think that it's long overdue and I
think that that includes some of the Justices.

Slater

wrote in message
...
On Dave Hinz wrote:
Gerry wrote:
[...]
Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

What, decide that it's a state issue and no a federal one? I don't
think there's any chance of that.

Well, until the Second is incorporated under the Fourteenth, that's
largely the way things stand now. The Feds have some gun control in
effect (passed and/or upheld under their tax and interstate commerce
authority), but so far they've demonstrated a "hands off" attitude
regarding State/local restrictions. Look at Morton Grove.

Since the appellant isn't a resident of a State, I'd think that the
Supremes could easily avoid the incorporation issue, leaving the
States free reign to pass their own gun control legislation, but still
setting a precedent for DC and the territories.

Yeah, and that was intentional on the part of the plaintiffs -- or rather
the lawyers who concocted the case. They didn't want to take a chance of
winning the principle and then losing the case on the incorporation issue.


SCOTUS doesn't always adhere to doctrine of deciding their cases as
narrowly as possible (IMHO), so I think that this case in particular
is something of a crap shoot, with regards to implications for most of
the country.

Yes. They could very well decide to incorporate at the same time, just to
get it all out at once.

However, they'll be accused of judicial activism if they do, for decades to
come. We'll see how well Scalia plays both sides of the fence on this one.
d8-)


That said, I think that there's a fair chance that they will address
incorporation. A lot of people think that it's long overdue and I
think that that includes some of the Justices.

Agreed. That's my sense of it, too.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:52:53 -0800 (PST), Gerry
wrote:

Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

What, decide that it's a state issue and no a federal one? I don't
think there's any chance of that.

What Slater said. The venue (D.C.) was chosen specifically so the basic
right could be decided without getting tangled in the problem of
incorporating it under the 14th Amendment. If they don't incorporate, it
remains as a prohibition only against the federal government -- assuming
they find for the individual right, that is.

However, if they do incorporate, they'll be accused of overreaching with
judicial activism because they'll have exceeded the needs of the case. Since
D.C. isn't a state, there's no direct need to decide the issue for the
states with this case.

That's exactly the kind of overreaching that judicial "conservatives" have
been blasting judicial "liberals" for, for decades. Personally, I don't
think it will bother them very much, because Scalia is a self-justifying
hypocrite, Thomas doesn't care, and Roberts, despite his mild demeanor, has
a wild streak that he keeps hidden most of the time.

--
Ed Huntress

On Nov 23, 9:16 am, Wes wrote:
Gerry wrote:
On Nov 23, 7:35 am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
The author, Mike Cox, is the attorney general of Michigan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898

The Wall Street Journal, Friday, November 23, 2007.

Joe Gwinn

Or the chance to totally screw it up with a fu'd decision like they
did with emminant domain a year ago.

Affirming your property isn't yours if someone else wants it to put
something on it that generates higher taxes which is considered a public
good.

It would seem natural to snuf out gun rights in case someone gets some silly
idea of standing his ground on his ground.

Wes

I believe you are correct.

I see far too much "they are going to vote for me" from the gun
owners...it could EASILY go the other way.

Ready to hand over your guns?

You know...all those guns that are registered so the Feds know that
you have them.

If not....well I guess that makes you a terrorist under the Republican
Patriot Act.

No one thought that the emminant domain issue would go the way it
did...you have no right to own property if any government...local,
state or federal decides otherwise.

TMT

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

If not....well I guess that makes you a terrorist under the Republican
Patriot Act.

Hell I'm probably a criminal under many acts. Lathe, metal, guns, books,
charcoal, potassium nitrate, sulfur, military training documents, ect. I
bet the ATF or whatever it is called could make a case that I could be
making bombs or silencers.

Now if you are trying to draw me into supporting the patriot act, forget
about it. I've figured we gave it enough time for the feds to react and now
it is time to roll things back to pre 911 days.

You should catch Judge Napolitano a frequent commentator on Fox News. He
excoriated the Patriot Act recently. Check the CSPAN archives.

Track it from this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/18/185731/00

If the passengers had been armed like free men, those planes would never
have reached the targets.

Wes

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:55:37 -0500, Wes wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

If not....well I guess that makes you a terrorist under the Republican
Patriot Act.

Hell I'm probably a criminal under many acts.

Sure, but it's amusing that as usual, too_many_trolls forgets who voted
for the Patriot Act. Tell us all, TMT, how many Democrats voted for it?
You do know, right? What's the number?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:18:15 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Wes

I believe you are correct.

I see far too much "they are going to vote for me" from the gun
owners...it could EASILY go the other way.

Ready to hand over your guns?

You know...all those guns that are registered so the Feds know that
you have them.

Molon Labe


Gunner