gun ban unconstitutional

What needs to be declared unconstitutional are the 535 dirt bags in
Congress, and most of the civilian "employees."

"Steve" wrote in message
...


gun ban unconstitutional

What needs to be declared unconstitutional are the 535 dirt bags in
Congress, and most of the civilian "employees."

I agree! Time to start all over. Fire every one of them *******s.

Wilbur Hubbard

I agree! Time to start all over. Fire every one of them *******s.


Close: Fire AT every one of them *******s.

The interesting thing here is that the DC mayor says that they will
continue to enforce the ban. Nice that they have to respect the laws.

"Ringmaster" wrote in message
ups.com...
The interesting thing here is that the DC mayor says that they will
continue to enforce the ban. Nice that they have to respect the laws.

Isn't the Mayor of D.C. the felon who served time for dealing cocaine?
You don't think scum like that respects the law do you?

I tried to explain it to Dave the so-called lawyer but it didn't seem
like he comprehended it at all. Laws, good or bad, are written and
enforced right away. No matter if they are unconstitutional. They are
enforced until such time as they are challenged in court and declared
unconstitutional. To get the D.C. ban struck down for good it's going to
take an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. The recent ruling only reversed an earlier ruling on specific
grounds.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge
SILBERMAN.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the
district court's dismissal of their complaint alleging that the
District of Columbia's gun control laws violate their Second
Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment
("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed") does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today's National Guard. We reverse.

Do you see the slight-of-hand? Silberman reversed the ruling of the
lower court. He did not exactly say the D.C. gun ban was
unconstitutional. He just stated in his opinion that the dismissal of
the original complaint was invalid for the specific reasons given. He
did not state it was invalid for all reasons. So, that does not
necessary make the law itself unconstitutional. That's how they get you.
They write a law that they know full well is unconstitutional. Then when
somebody takes them to court and they lose for a specific reason they
just say there are other good reasons. Then citizens have to start all
over again. State and federal govt. has infinite time and money to
spend. Your money, your time. It's hard to go up against that. That's
the danger of such laws being passed in the first place. That's why I
hate lawyers so much. They are sworn to uphold the law yet they
knowingly write bogus law and then they make a living fighting for and
against. We need to get serious and put every lawyer in jail who writes
bogus law. That would put a stop to it.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:13:37 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Do you see the slight-of-hand? Silberman reversed the ruling of the
lower court. He did not exactly say the D.C. gun ban was
unconstitutional. He just stated in his opinion that the dismissal of
the original complaint was invalid for the specific reasons given. He
did not state it was invalid for all reasons. So, that does not
necessary make the law itself unconstitutional.

I guess you didn't read down to the part that says "As such, we hold
it
unconstitutional."

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)

Wilbur Hubbard

Every time you open your mouth you demonstrate you learned NOTHING in
law school. Is that why you're just a two-bit slip-and-fall lawyer?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...

Neal, every time you open your mouth on legal topics you further
demonstrate
your ignorance.


In sum, we conclude that Heller has standing to raise his § 1983
challenge to specific provisions of the District's gun control laws.

III
As we noted, the Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
U.S. CONST. amend. II.

Specific provisions. Just like I said. They are just squabbling about
specific provisions. They haven't struck down the entire law. Just the
dismissed case in question.

Wilbur Hubbard

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:56:08 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:13:37 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:


Do you see the slight-of-hand? Silberman reversed the ruling of the
lower court. He did not exactly say the D.C. gun ban was
unconstitutional. He just stated in his opinion that the dismissal of
the original complaint was invalid for the specific reasons given. He
did not state it was invalid for all reasons. So, that does not
necessary make the law itself unconstitutional.

I guess you didn't read down to the part that says "As such, we hold
it
unconstitutional."

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)

Wilbur Hubbard

Every time you open your mouth you demonstrate you learned NOTHING in
law school. Is that why you're just a two-bit slip-and-fall lawyer?

Wilbur Hubbard


I can vouch that Dave is not an ambulance chaser, or a "slip and fall" lawyer.
He went to a pretty respectable law school, too.

CWM
Goodness...someone quick gve Charlie two aspirin and put him to
bed...he's feeling poorly...

"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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:07:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

In sum, we conclude that Heller has standing to raise his § 1983
challenge to specific provisions of the District's gun control laws.

Here's another one to add to your homework. What does "standing" mean?
Check
that out after you figure out what hearsay is. Oh, and while you're at
it,
what's Section 1983?

Too easy. I remember a case in California where some wacko sued to have
"under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. He used his young
daughter as the offended party who was an atheist and felt uncomfortable
saying "under God." The Supreme Court dismissed because they found the
Dad did not have standing to bring such a suit because he did not have
custody of the daughter. So, to have standing one must be directly
affected or aggrieved.

Wilbur Hubbard