TexasCHLforum.com

This deserves its own thread rather than hijacking the Ron Paul fundraising discussion.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The courts will do their dirty work for them and the politicians will say that while they personally believe in gun rights, it's what the courts have determined the constitution means and it is out of their hands. (Sound familiar?)

Yes. Very familiar. It sounds a lot like Giuliani.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Your fingers will be cold and dead, Hillary's agents will be prying your guns from them, and she will be claiming to personally support individual gun rights while "lamenting" that the courts have ruled and there's nothing she can do.

I agree Hillary would be bad for civil rights such as those guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The problem is Rudy would be just as bad, and perhaps worse.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Your fingers will be cold and dead, Hillary's agents will be prying your guns from them, and she will be claiming to personally support individual gun rights while "lamenting" that the courts have ruled and there's nothing she can do.

I agree Hillary would be bad for civil rights such as those guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The problem is Rudy would be just as bad, and perhaps worse.

Not if he even remotely keeps his word about appointing Originalist judges.

In Hillary's case, I haven't heard her say anything about the kind of judges she would appoint.

Care to guess?

Then there's Obama. (Maybe Hillary would appoint HIM to the SCOTUS.)

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Not if he even remotely keeps his word about appointing Originalist judges.

The first thing a new President does is swear to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Giuliani has promised to ignore the Constitution as soon as he finishes that oath. Why would you trust him to keep a promise about appointing originalist judges?

When it comes to picking judges, do you really trust the judgement of a man who is still defending Bernie Kerik?

KBCraig wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Not if he even remotely keeps his word about appointing Originalist judges.

The first thing a new President does is swear to faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Giuliani has promised to ignore the Constitution as soon as he finishes that oath.

?????

KBCraig wrote: Why would you trust him to keep a promise about appointing originalist judges?

Oh, maybe because he seems to generally keep his word.

And, yes, people can come up with cheap shots on irrelevent matters all day long. And maybe someday when sound bites are given equal standing with analysis and judgement they might be considered convincing.

But not to me, so don't bother.

KBCraig wrote: When it comes to picking judges, do you really trust the judgement of a man who is still defending Bernie Kerik?

Sure.

A lot more than I trust the judgement of Hillary/Obama. Because I know what she/he would do. Any judge they would appoint would throw the 2A under the bus.

All you have to do is look at recent federal circuit court decisions, how judges voted, and who appointed them. Carter/Clinton appointees ALWAYS favor the so-called "collective rights" theory of the 2A. Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 judges overwhelmingly (though not unanimously) favor the individual rights theory.

This is especially true for Bush 43's appointments.

So if you really want someone to pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, vote for Hillary.

But if you want establish a federal juduciary that will protect the 2A for the foreseeable future, vote for Hillary's Republican opponent - no matter who it turns out to be.

Even Satan.

How does Rudy Giuliani really feel about firearms? Here's the answer, straight from the horse's "mouth" http://www.youtube.com/v/Zs5DxwzEXHQ

[/quote]

Then there's Obama. (Maybe Hillary would appoint HIM to the SCOTUS.)

[/quote]

OMG. Frankie, I was getting ready to fly out this morning... I think I may have to call in sick!

That card would fit perfectly into the Machiavellian world of Clinton politics. Make him a big man, get him out of the way...

Glad I was sitting down when I read that one!

Jeff B.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: But if you want establish a federal juduciary that will protect the 2A for the foreseeable future, vote for Hillary's Republican opponent - no matter who it turns out to be.

Even Satan.

Very well said!!!

Vote to defeat the socialists (democrats).
The primary directive is to WIN.
Voting for ideals is admirable, but irrelevant if it includes defeat at the polls.
Without victory there is NO power or voice in government.
Under socialism (read: democrat victory), our 2A rights will be subject to more AWB, Magazine capacity limits, ammunition restrictions, Brady half-wit restrictions, etc.

Sorry..... I was caught up in the moment....(/rant off)

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Even Satan.

I think we are missing the entire point..........

It appears that it matters not who will be in the WH as the problem cannot be corrected by anyone! The 2nd amendment is important to us.....but if things don't change soon, the entire Constitution will be worthless!

I NEVER thought I would live long enough to see this:

100.00 USD = 91.4423 CAD

The War in Iraq/Afghanistan and the rising price of Crude is milking the US Economy badly.
This is EXACTLY what the Terrorists want and they are succeeding! We are in for a long hard road ahead with no end in sight!

Rudy is worse than Hilly because he is falsely portraying himself as a moderate, while Hilly can never be anything more than a carpetbagging clinton.

jimlongley wrote:Rudy is worse than Hilly because he is falsely portraying himself as a moderate, while Hilly can never be anything more than a carpetbagging clinton.

So instead of spreading some margerine on our toast that has a higher cholesterol content than advertised, we should just eat poison and get it over with.

That seems to be what the "anti-Rudy pro-Hillary" people are advocating.

I have an analysis of recent court decisions that I will post tonight. Basically, it shows clearly that ANY Democrat's federal judge appointees will be the kiss of death for the 2nd Amendment.

So if it's between Hillary and Satan, or Obama and Satan, or ANY DEMOCRAT and Satan, I'm voting for Satan.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:That seems to be what the "anti-Rudy pro-Hillary" people are advocating.

I challenge you to point out anywhere that I have said that I was pro-Hilly, I merely said I thought that Rudy is worse, not that she was a better choice.

Now I could carry it forward; he is worse because he will garner more votes by trading on his "America's Mayor" image, 9/11, and so on, but I expected that to be intuitively obvious to the analytical among us.

Given the choice between Hilly, Rudy, and Barack, I will vote for secession.

jimlongley wrote: Now I could carry it forward; he is worse because he will garner more votes by trading on his "America's Mayor" image, 9/11, and so on, but I expected that to be intuitively obvious to the analytical among us.

Given the choice between Hilly, Rudy, and Barack, I will vote for secession.

To at least some of the analytical among us, (Well, at least one anyway), if given the choice between Hillary, Rudy, and Obama one decides to vote for "secession", that would be regarded as the functional equivalent of voting for Hillary.

I've researched 3 of the most cited 2A circuit court cases of recent times. These are Emerson v US, Silveira v Lockyer, and Parker/Heller v DC. For each case I determined how each judge involved voted, whether their position favored the individual rights view of the 2A or the collective rights view, and which president appointed them. The results are given below, and pretty much speak for themselves.

Emerson v US

In this case, Emerson challenges the constitutionality of the provision or the Violence Against Women act that makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if they are subject to certain types of domestic restraining orders.

Judge Sam Cummings of the US District Court for Northern Texas ruled in favor of Emerson that the VAW act was unconstitutional. His ruling included an exhaustive analysis of the 2A where he concluded that it did indeed protect an individual right.

Judge Cummings was appointed by President Reagan.

Judge Garwood and Judge Demoss of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rversed Cummings, ruling that the VAW passed constitutional muster, though just barely. But their opinion also included an exhaustive analysis of the 2A and agreed with Cummings that the 2A protected an individual right.

Judge Garwood was appointed by President Reagan.

Judge Demoss was appointed by President G.H.W. Bush (Bush 41)

In the same case, Judge Parker agreed with Garwood and Demoss that the VAW act was constitutional, but took the trouble to write a separate opinion saying that the 2A did not protect an individual right.

Judge Parker was appointed by President Clinton.


Silveira v Lockyer

This case was a challenge to the AWB passed by CA in the 90's. This case was heard in the 9th Circuit Court. All 3 judges hearing the case ageed that CA's AWB was constitutional.

Judge Reinhardt wrote the main opinion, where he analyzed the 2A and concluded that it was a collective right, essentially a right of the state to arm its militia. Judge Fischer joined in this opinion, while Judge Magill wrote a separate opinion where he agreed that the AWB was constitutional but said that a 2A analysis was unnecessary because prior 9th Circuit precedent had already established that the 2A referred to a collective right.

So all three judges took an anti-2A position in this case.

Reinhardt was appointed by President Carter.

Fischer was appointed by President Clinton.

Magill was appointed by President Reagan.


Parker (or Heller) v DC

As we probably all know, this case was a direct challenge to DC's gun ban laws basaed squarely on 2A grounds. This case was heard by a 3 judge panel consisting of Judge Silberman, Judge Griffith, and Judge Henderson.

Judge Silberman wrote the majority opinion where he concluded through a thorough analysis that the 2A protected an individual right. He then ruled that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional and must be overturned. Judge Griffith joined in this opinion.

Judge Henderson authored a bizzare dissent where she claimed that the 2A didn't apply to DC because it wasn't a state, and that even if it did apply, DC's interest in holding down the crime rate made a gun ban constitutional.

Judge Silberman was appointed by President Reagan.

Judge Griffith was appointed by President G.W. Bush (Bush 43)

Judge Henderson was appointed by President G.H.W. Bush (Bush 41)

DC then petitioned for a hearing before the full Court. Voting in favor of a re-hearing (the anti 2A position) were:

Judge Randolf, appointed by President G.H.W. Bush (Bush 41)

Judge Rogers, appointed by President Clinton

Judge Tatel, appointed by President Clinton

Judge Garland, appointed by President Clinton

Voting against a re-hearing (the pro-2A position) were:

Judge Ginsberg, appointed by President Reagan

Judge Sentelle, appointed by President Reagan

Judge Brown, appointed by President G.W. Bush (Bush 43)

Judge Kavanaugh, appointed by President G.W. Bush (Bush 43)

Judge Griffith, appointed by President G.W. Bush (Bush 43)

Judge Henderson, appointed by President G.H.W. Bush (Bush 41)

Notice a pattern here?

Judges appointed by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush mostly ruled or opined that the 2A protected an individual right, though there were exceptions.

Judges appointed by G.W. Bush ruled or opined in favor of an individual right 100% of the time.

And judges appointed by Carter or Clinton ruled or opined in favor of the collective rights view 100% of the time.

In an 8 year term, approx. 1/2 the federal district and appellate judges turn over either via death or retirement.

Before going through this little exercise, I figured that there would be a difference in the 2A outlook of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats. But I had no idea that it would be this dramatic a difference.

So does anyone care to predict what kind of judges Hillary is likely to appoint, and how they might rule on 2A cases that may come before them? I'm thinking about 14th Amendment "incorporation" cases and challenges to various oppressive CA, NYC, Chicago, NJ, MA, and MD gun laws.

And if that isn't bad enough, think about the kinds of judges Obama is likely to appoint if he ever got the chance.

There's no way Rudy could be worse than a Democrat, any Democrat, because their judges vote 100% against the 2A. You can't get any worse than that.

As I have stated, Rudy isn't my first choice Republican nominee. But whoever the nominee ends up being, I'm gonna vote for the major party opponent of the Democrat candidate no matter who they are.

Democrat judges will throw the 2A under the bus and won't lose a moment's sleep over it. When you read their opinions, as I have, you will see that to them, you have no 2A rights. And if we ever give them the chance, they will make that the law of the land.