Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Broder exalts bipartisanship as an end in itself, as this notion that if you can just shelve your party affiliations and come together as public officials, you can accomplish all sorts of good things.

this was also the original blueprint for Ty@50.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
D.C.'s gun ban overturned--Second Amendment is not limited to militias.

Interesting juxtaposition here:

• “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [i.e., the militia] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” 307 U.S. at 178.

That's a quote from the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, from page 44 of the slip opinion.

• "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense.... [T]he activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

That's from page 46. The D.C. Circuit's view of the right seems a little, um, more expansive than the Supreme Court precedent would suggest.

The dissent gets it:

• {U}ntil and unless the Supreme Court revisits Miller, its reading of the Second Amendment is the one we are obliged to follow.

That's from page 6.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
You apparently didn't get the memo. Politics is a winner take all sport, in which there is one clearly correct answer. Spanky said so.

Actually, I suspect Spanky might agree with both of us. Split personality you know.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
I guess this is hardly a surprise given the near univerals inability to actually read any meaning into all of the words of the Second Amendment. But these two passages in the article seem inconsistent:

I don't think so.

A firearm kept unloaded, DISASSEMBLED, and under trigger lock is useless to a homeowner in any crisis. Unless you're a well- trained sort who practices frequently, it will take minutes to reassemble and load the weapon and remove the lock. (So -- the Ct. App. said this ain't a reasonable restriction.)

I suspect the disassembled part is what killed this provision.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't think so.

A firearm kept unloaded, DISASSEMBLED, and under trigger lock is useless to a homeowner in any crisis. Unless you're a well- trained sort who practices frequently, it will take minutes to reassemble and load the weapon and remove the lock. (So -- the Ct. App. said this ain't a reasonable restriction.)

I suspect the disassembled part is what killed this provision.

S_A_M

Probably. But having not read the opinion (and yet opining nonetheless), it strikes me that there is a whole lot of room between "you can regulate" and "you can't ban" that will need to be worked out under standard that is far from clear.

I guess we will see what the Supreme Court says, should the district chose to waste money on an appeal.

[Spanky]

Adder: weren't you saying Dennis Miller wasn't a conservative?

Watch these comments by Dennis about Libby, Coulter, and Maher.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...News&404&&&new

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Adder: weren't you saying Dennis Miller wasn't a conservative?

Watch these comments by Dennis about Libby, Coulter, and Maher.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...News&404&&&new

What did he say? The video player isn't working for me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A big PB hello to LawTalkers' newest member, bi-partisan fairy! We expect great things!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
A big PB hello to LawTalkers' newest member, bi-partisan fairy! We expect great things!

"Bi-partisan faggot" would have been far more amusing.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, you could substitute Coulter above for Maher and you'd still be spot on.

I won't disagree with you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And in this way, he and Coulter are the same. I think Coulter is pretty much a joke hack and everything she says is calculated to drive attention in order to keep her relevant to sell her product. She's actually very good at it and has big balls to say the things she does without apology, but there is very little substance coming from her these days.

I agree with you, with one caveat. Coulter is openly, vociferously, bigoted. I don't believe that's an act. I think she really does believe it. I don't think Maher is bigoted; just an ass.

[taxwonk]

Trust us. We're patriots.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.

Linky

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
Probably. But having not read the opinion (and yet opining nonetheless), it strikes me that there is a whole lot of room between "you can regulate" and "you can't ban" that will need to be worked out under standard that is far from clear.

I guess we will see what the Supreme Court says, should the district chose to waste money on an appeal.

It's not really wasted money . . . first off appeals are cheap. Second, it's a long-standing policy that there are good reasons to defend. (Not that I agree with D.C.'s law, but a 2-1 appellate decision that treads new constitutional ground is probably a far better decision to appeal than most.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Trust us. We're patriots.

It's a good periodic reminder the founders had pretty good ideas and foresight even 220 years ago.