Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court decision in action.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:20 AM
Original message
Supreme Court decision in action.
Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons
By MARK SHERMAN 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.

As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.

"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.

more... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glQMeX21SpPG60WWOw13...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aspergris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. And his appeal will fail
Heller makes clear the idea that GIVEN due process (such as being convicted of a felony) the RKBA can be taken away, just like the right to vote can.

There will be appeals like this. And they will lose.

This isn't the SCOTUS decision in action. This is creative lawyering in action. And it happens after EVERY major decision, to flesh out the parameters

That's how the rule of law works

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomer 50 Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
52. Read an interesting tidbit on this the other day......
According to the author, he thinks that an appeal may be successful. His rationale is that such a move would force judges to rethink their sentencings and to bolster truth in sentencing laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Better thread title would have been "Zealous, but futile, legal defense in action"

Or are you trying to make the case that the recent Heller decision actually supports this appeal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just one of many in the last two weeks
The Volokh Conspiracy started keeping track of cases where the defense threw in a second amendment challenge, but stopped after the first week when they had about 20 of them.

Every defense attorney involved in a case where a gun was used is going to throw it on the pile with all the otherr arguments, motions and the kitchen sink.

But ... in the decision itself Scalia said that the laws forbidding guns for the felon or mentally unstable were clearly constitutional.

Why don't you try starting a thread when a felon is actually freed because of the Heller case? We'll all wait right here for that news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Actually, the felons have a valid point here.
As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, don't all Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense now? It wasn't legal before the latest brilliant SCOTUS decision, but now it'll come back to bite them in the ass. You have to admit they have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, it isn't
Scalia's opinion even specifically stated that the current list of prohibited persons is perfectly constitutional, given that it is almost 100% comprised of people who have dones something to get themselves on the list, and have been given due process. If the convicted felon in this story wanted to own guns again, he could have made a case to have his record restored, it does happen, not often, especially since many felons are repeat offenders.

You can't just completely ignore his post and then say that he has to admit they have a case. They don't, and their defense will F-A-I-L.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm sure the NRA will help them out with this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'm sure they will stand by their position on the matter
which is that felons and those adjudicated to be a harm to themselves and others, or people with certain mental health conditions, such as drug addiction, are fine on the prohibited persons list. They have never advocated for returning the right to own firearms to felons, and they never will. Felons have been prohibited people for a very long time, the prohibited list is not new.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Lighten up, thurnsten.
We're not discussing the end of civilization here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Your humor seems kind of... Flat. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I think it's cultural. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
51. So when you get caught you act like it was a joke, that's funny.
Seriously you are really slipping. I don't think you have fully recovered from the severe depresssion the Heller decision obviously put you in.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Thanks Dave
It helps having someone else point out the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. No they don't
At least we agree the the SC decision was brillant. The good guys won one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
50. You are very misinformed.
The decision specifically upheld the ban on felons posessing firearms. So no they don't have a case.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. SINCE WHEN IS SCALIA AN EXPERT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW????
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 09:23 AM by Herman74
WELL, WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER???? I anxiously await receiving it (though I doubt I will)! Do gunlovers love citing a member of the "felonious five" who stole the election of 2000 -- is this who you cite as your "expert" on the matter, someone responsible for Bush's theft of the presidency??? Oh, please don't tell me the cat's got your tongue!! Don't you agree that only a COMPLETE FOOL would rush to stand with Scalia, when Scalia declares something to be (in your own words) "clearly constitutional"????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Even though he's right?
Felons are afforded plenty of due process, and even have a method to have their records expunged later on should they prove themselves deserving of it. They are not randomly selected people or people picked based on uncontrollable factors, they are people who have committed serious crimes and have shown that it is in society's best interest to prevent them from owning firearms. His statement on the matter is absolutely, 100% correct. No one wants recidivist drug dealers and armed robbers to have guns, that would be silly.

Why deny someone support on a specific issue that they are fully in the right about over unrelated events?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Alleged rightness does not establish expertise...
...and do you ever cite nonexperts when trying hard to make a decent argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. And the straw doth fly (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. So tell us, Herman74, do you think convicted felons should be able to own guns?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. I don't think anyone should be able to own guns n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. You may be grossly misguided, but at least you are consistent
I'd like to see your plan for disarming the civilian police some day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. ..


I don't think anyone should be allowed to have stupid ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. If it means more rights for gun owners...
They'd defend Bush shooting a puppy on the White House lawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. why do antis always come up with horrid fantasies?
"They'd defend Bush shooting a puppy on the White House lawn."


I'm glad you people don't own guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. I think it boils down to projection
They are afraid they would do something horrible if they had a gun, so they believe anyone else would too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I don't care if Scalia ate your kitten.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 11:28 AM by AtheistCrusader
The majority opinion he wrote for Heller vs. DC is in my opinion, accurate, and supported by everything I have found regarding the original intent, and literal text of the 2nd Amendment.

That doesn't mean I have to defend or like every last thing he has ever said or done.

Edit: Also, this suit will go nowhere. Not only does Heller not change the status of felons, wrt firearms ownership rights, but each state already has a process for a felon to apply and request to have their voting and firearms rights restored. There is no infringement here. If there was no option, post-punishment to restore these rights, they might have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Your crappy "guilt by association" argument stinks!
You have a weak beyond recovery point to argue if the only thing you have to offer is chastising one of five judges that wrote the opinion and suggesting that any of us that agree with the court's findings must agree with everythign they ever did. To disagree with their decision you have to also be willing to throw several major "conservative" law professors like Tribe, Lindgren and Desrhowitz overboard too.

We'll all just set aside that not one thing you had to say is in anyway relevant to the issue under discussion and you can stop foaming at the mouth because you lost the gun control argument, period. Who the hell are you anyway to tell any of us what is and isn't the right way to think of an issue as Democrats?

Quick now, it's your turn to post multiple pictures of Cheney with a gun at the NRA convention and try and make every Democrat that owns a gun feel guilty.

As my drill sergeant used to say, "Your shit is weak".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Look, buddy, YOU DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO CITE SCALIA AS YOUR "EXPERT"...
...read your own freakin' words and weep:

"But ... in the decision itself Scalia said that the laws forbidding guns for the felon or mentally unstable were clearly constitutional." Okay, will you explain to us all just how the criminal, Scalia, is an expert on constitutional law, or will you once again evade the issue????? I'm guessing the latter.

Only a complete fool would ever cite the criminal, Scalia, as an expert in constitutional law, agreed???? Game. Set. Match. You lose.

This last time, though, you finally realized that Scalia alone wasn't nearly enough. So you trot out some other names designed to impress people. Well, I'm not impressed by any of them (especially not by Dershowitz), and you might want to use a spell-check next time, to save us from having to deal with "everythign" and "Desrhowitz."

And I haven't lost the gun control argument, not as long as THE UNITED STATES EASILY HAS A HIGHER MURDER RATE THAN ALL WESTERN, INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES (MOST HAVING GUN CONTROL TO SOME NOTABLE DEGREE). I'll say it once: If anyone's lost, it's you. Even with regards to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision was 5 to 4, your fellow gunlover, Bush, appointing two of the five, and we both know that future Supreme Courts can overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. Funny, I sort of see Obama appointing justices in the mode of Breyer and Ginsburg rather than Roberts and "Machine-Gun Sammy" Alito, what do you think, DonP?? I'll say it a second time: if anyone's lost, it's you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Gee, I don't think I have any "buddies" that are fascists ...
... and that want to disarm millions of law abiding gun owners because someone with an inflated sense of self righteousness and importance thinks it's the right thing to do.

I'm assuming you will be going door to door personally to enforce it when you get the dictator of your choice in power? Or were you planning on creating a special police unit to do it all for you. Disarmament by thugs in black uniforms with deaths head shoulder insignia have been very popular for that genre over the years.

Or just pass another gun control law that somehow all the criminals will obey?

Yeah, whether you like it ornot Scalia IS one of the nine experts on this issue because he gets to decide these cases and you don't. Let me know how you plan on getting me drummed out of the Democrat party here in Chicago after 50 years for saying that.

Whether you like it or not, Scalia and the other four justices were right on this one. So call us when you're made the head of a major law firm or law school and have some legal credentials and we may listen to your opinions, but I HATE SCALIA is a pretty worthless point of view in a decided case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. Sorry about that, come to think of it, I did indeed get a bit too friendly....
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 09:26 PM by Herman74
...for the true buddies I have give a damn about human life, and let's just say, they get a tad peeved about children getting gunned down. Must really surprise you that there are people like that.

"I'm assuming you will be going door to door personally to enforce it when you get the dictator of your choice in power? Or were you planning on creating a special police unit to do it all for you. Disarmament by thugs in black uniforms with deaths head shoulder insignia have been very popular for that genre over the years." -- DonP

Uh, just like cops go door to door to check for cocaine or heroin? Yes, or no, or are you going to refuse to answer? Oh, that's right, they don't do that, you're just being silly again.
And, uh, I don't believe in dictatorship. I believe in democracy, unlike the man you turn to for legal advice, to help you determine what's "clearly constitutional" (your words), a criminal known as Scalia.

"So call us when you're made the head of a major law firm or law school and have some legal credentials and we may listen to your opinions..." -- DonP

Okay, I'll do that, and know that I "may listen to your opinion" when you finally agree to stop turning to criminals to help you determine the constitutionality of something or other. But, alas, I have very little hope you'll ever change your ways.

"Yeah, whether you like it ornot (sic) Scalia IS one of the nine experts on this issue." -- DonP. Wow. Just because gunlover Republican President Ronald Reagan appointed Scalia to the Supreme Court, Scalia's an expert. Of course, there were four other "experts" on the Supreme Court who disagreed with Scalia regarding gun control, but you'll continue to cite the guy who stole the 2000 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Because the ban on cocaine and heroin is going swimmingly
I think you should probably re-evaluate that statement, because in essence you are saying you have no problem knowing that all guns would then be illegal, and gangs and other criminal elements would be buying them up by the million, while ordinary law-abiding people would be fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. So gun owners are incapable of valuing human life?
Is that really what you meant to say?

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. You're picking a fight in an empty bar room (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Yep, and he's losing fast n/t
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #34
43. Lots of "shouting" too
We need to have a prize down here for the first person in every thread like this that refuses to actually address the issue or the court decision (that they obviously haven't bothered to read) and just rants about Scalia or posts the old picture of Cheney at the NRA meeting to try and "scare Dem gun owners away".

Maybe we need a picture of David Duke driving a Chevy, then we can point to it and claim that, "David Duke drives a Chevy and so do you, you must agree with everything he believes too you monster!". That would have about the same level of credibility, huh?

They can't win by any form of even vague logic so they shout at you in all caps, try and use a 5th grade level of guilt by association and finally, when all else fails, appoint themselves the sole determining source of what a "good Democrat" believes and stands for, including of course massive doses of gun control. I bet none of them look anything like Howard Dean either.

The only comfort though is most of them don't last too very long and the rest of them find themselves on the ignore list pretty quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #23
45. Interesting to note.
Even with regards to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision was 5 to 4, your fellow gunlover, Bush, appointing two of the five, and we both know that future Supreme Courts can overturn previous Supreme Court decisions.

You may be interested to note that while the decision was 5 to 4, it was unanimous among all 9 justices that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The debate revolved around whether or not it was an enumerated right nor not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. THATS NOT FAIR!!!
Edited on Thu Jul-24-08 05:14 PM by beevul
How DARE you bring relevant fact into this discussion?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. C'mon if he didn't read the decision ...
... he obviously he didn't bother to read the dissents, especially since they don't agree with the Bumper Sticker rationale he's using for some kind of collective right.

I mean how many times do you have to use all caps and bold faced type to say "Scalia is Evil" in mulitple posts before maybe you begin to realize that no one here is agreeing with him on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. "Only a COMPLETE FOOL"
Do gunlovers love citing a member of the "felonious five" who stole the election of 2000 -- is this who you cite as your "expert" on the matter, someone responsible for Bush's theft of the presidency??? Oh, please don't tell me the cat's got your tongue!! Don't you agree that only a COMPLETE FOOL would rush to stand with Scalia, when Scalia declares something to be (in your own words) "clearly constitutional"????


Wow.

Actually, "only a COMPLETE FOOL" would fail to stand with truth, no matter who stood beside him. Admittedly, certain people agreeing with you might make you reconsider--reconsider whether your belief is actually correct. But after your reevaluation, truth alone should drive your decision. It is stupid in the extreme to abandon truth to avoid agreeing with "the wrong people."

Scalia has condemned the Dred Scott decision. Do you therefore embrace it?!!!! If so, you prove how wrong you are by your racism and dishonesty; if not, you prove how wrong you are by your inconsistency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. The issue, is regarding Scalia as an expert on what is "clearly constitutional"
I do not.

Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Otto DeFay Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. The issue is: is Heller a correct interpretation of the constitution.
Edited on Wed Jul-23-08 04:14 PM by Otto DeFay
Scalia may be an ass on many things but even a broken clock is right twice a day. It is a l
feeble attempt at creating a false dichotomy to state that an argument is invalid just because Someone reprehensible supported it. I can't think of a single supreme court justice where I agreed with all of their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Real_Talk Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Honesty v/s Expertise
I do not question his expertise or intellect ever, I sometimes question his neutrality or honesty, bot not his expertise.

As far as the 2nd amendment, he should have gone further for individual rights, but as usual the court split the baby.

It is too easy to become a felon these days, for me to get upset at the idea of a felon being allowed to excercise their rights. It should depend on the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
48. Is someone free to disregard Roe Vs Wade *if* ...
...hey felt Harry Blackmuns' Constitutional scholarship wasn't up to snuff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. I guess since you started calling him one?
Really, can you help a brother out?

Where in this thread was Scalia 1st called/described/noted as an "expert" at anything ?

I believe it was you, in post #11


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
44. On Scalia.
SINCE WHEN IS SCALIA AN EXPERT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW????WELL, WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER???? I anxiously await receiving it (though I doubt I will)!

I figure that anybody who makes Supreme Court Justice is probably a pretty good lawyer and probably well versed in the laws of the United States, particularly the U.S. Constitution.

Do gunlovers love citing a member of the "felonious five" who stole the election of 2000 -- is this who you cite as your "expert" on the matter, someone responsible for Bush's theft of the presidency??? Oh, please don't tell me the cat's got your tongue!! Don't you agree that only a COMPLETE FOOL would rush to stand with Scalia, when Scalia declares something to be (in your own words) "clearly constitutional"????

I don't look gift horses in the mouth. When my house is burning down, I don't stop the firemen and weed out ones with whom I've had past political disagreements.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. Sounds like zanne, Barton, and the other defendants haven't actually read the Heller decision
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Knowledge is counterproductive
for some causes and in some quarters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
22. Heller UPHELD the prohibition on ownership by felons.
This is "Supreme Court decision in action" how, precisely?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Well we have ppointed it out
so the options are narrowing quickly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
37. Any convicted felon who has has her/his civil rights restored without exception has the legal right
to keep and bear arms.

I wish those reporters who don't know a gun-bore from their arse and those who oppose RKBA most specifically their nefarious sub group known as gun-grabbers among the pro-RKBA community would learn to read laws before they spout off pure, unadulterated BS!

It's time for all Democrats to support our presidential candidate Obama who spoke for our party and We the People by saying "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
41. Pennsylvania didn't have any prohibition agains keeping loaded guns at home to begin with
I feel bad for the defense lawyer, though. His genius-level clients, all by their lonesome, combined their IQs to reach that magic "warm room temperature" level to find some flimsy excuse, probably based on reading the post-decision hysteria from the anti-gun folks, to legally protect themselves and now Mr. Chontos is stuck with using it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC