"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:56:08 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

We hold "it" unconstitutional. Ask yourself, Dave, just does "it"
refer
to in this case.
"It" does not refer to the law itself. "It" refers to the lower courts
interpretation.
Duh! (sorry Ellen, but it applies here so well)

Wrong. As usual. Go back and read it.

Oh, wait. The sentence preceding it has more than one clause. Your
grammar
may be inadequate to parse the two sentences.

Hey, stupid. The court of appeals was asked to look at the lower court's
decision that the 2nd Amendment refers only to the right to bear arms if
one is a militia member. The court of appeals is looking ONLY at that
faulty decision.

OK, now get through your ****ing thick stupid skull, Dave. Despite the
recent trend in some courts, courts CANNOT WRITE LAW FROM THE BENCH. Got
it? Courts can only decide pro or con about laws that are written by
legislatures or interpret provisions of the Constitution in this case.

The court can find "it" unconstitutional if "it" is a faulty decision by
the court. No court can find any provision of the Constitution
unconstitutional.

What a frigging retard you are, Dave. Who and how much did you have to
pay for your law degree? Who did you hire to pass the bar exam for you?
Maybe you have a twin brother. You know, the one who got all the brains.
Charlie Morgan tried to say you are a respectable lawyer well above the
level of your average slip-and-fall lawyer. I find that difficult to
believe if only for one reason. That being you spend time posting here.
Any real lawyer wouldn't have so much time to waste. Let alone be able
to abide getting his ass kicked on a daily basis by armchair lawyers.

Wilbur Hubbard