National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[F430murci]

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

You're not the only one on this forum with a law degree and a license to practice...and I actually went to better law schools than you did.

Haha, I never mentioned where I went to law school and I don't measure myself or others by where they attended school. I measure by performance and success in the courtroom. My firm has had plenty of Harvard grads not making the cut after being here a year or so . . . Something about book sense not equating common sense.

Another good measure I use when hiring lawyers is an ability to read and apply case law. You really miss it on Lopez. Why not look at Janet Reno's proposed changes to statute in response to Lopez and see how easily Feds can handle commerce issue. I am a Civil Rico lawyer. Civil RICO requires a degree of impact on or engagement in interstate commerce so I am no neophyte to this area of law. Guns are easy as the vast majority of guns or component parts thereof move through interstate commerce at some point.

This addition of the 5 highlighted words was all that was necessary to overcome the Lopez case you keep citing:

(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that -

(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a

pervasive, nationwide problem;

( crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate

movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;

© firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce

and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools,

as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the

Judiciary (!3) the House of Representatives and the Committee on

the Judiciary of the Senate;

You also misread Heller. Scalia was very specific in Heller and the holding was very concise. Scalia, in dicta, contemplated that only certain limited types of weapons may be within the ambit of or protected by the Second Amendment. Scalia is Heller and publically has consistently articulated that the 18th century framers of the constitution permitted bans on certain types of weapons leaving door wide open for gun control.

[Scott]

Ah.....the topic is NRA calls for armed guards. It's now about how to hire an attorney. Interesting, but off-topic.

[submaniac]

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

Dude, seriously, let it go. You're not a lawyer, just some guy on an anonymous forum claiming to be. Fine, whatever floats your boat. But everything that you've claimed in this thread, legal wise, is just not correct.

[F430murci]

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

Dude, seriously, let it go. You're not a lawyer, just some guy on an anonymous forum claiming to be. Fine, whatever floats your boat. But everything that you've claimed in this thread, legal wise, is just not correct.

Point out one legal inaccuracy of something I have said with reference to back that up. I cited xxxxxx statute with language that Reno inserted to circumvent the Lopez decision. Not only am I lawyer, I have clerked for a Supreme Court so I have a bit of experience in statutory interpretation and constitutional issues as that as 80 + percent of what a Supreme Court does.

Edited January 1, 2013 by metisdead

[submaniac]

If you want to point out the things you are wrong on that makes me doubt, I can do it. If you really want me to, that is.

[F430murci]

If you want to point out the things you are wrong on that makes me doubt, I can do it. If you really want me to, that is.

Yes, with Lopez and Heller. First point out how I am wrong about how insertion of the guns affect interstate commerce clause language did not apparently fix Looez issues and grant Federal ability to legislate gun control.

[chuckd]

Haha, I never mentioned where I went to law school.....

Really? What about this post?

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

[F430murci]

Haha, I never mentioned where I went to law school.....

Really? What about this post?

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

That is where i went to undergrad. The funny part is anyone thinking their is a tougher school to attend, especially money wise.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Rimmer
flame

[scorecard]

A 35-year-old man was shot to death in

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game

of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated

over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking

below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the

urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

9-19-2012] from News of the Weird

• 
  

So now we get news of the world on every murder in the US? Give it a break.

The story is about just one of tens of thousands of shooting deaths. It goes to show how, if so many people are in possession of guns, then shootings become more likely (even casual). There is no panacea, no 'silver bullet' solution (pun intended). I'll re-word a comparison I posted earlier. Suppose there are two identical houses, each housing 100 rowdie teen-agers. One house has one (spray) can of mace. The other house has 2,000 cans of mace, located all over. Which house will have more incidents of mace being sprayed if (for example) there are arguments and/or emotional outburts?

In other words, if there are a plethora of guns, there will be an increased incidence of guns being used. More of a factor, is the psychology of gun owners/weilders. That's a more convoluted topic. Of the thousands of Americans I've known over a half century, I can say that gun owners generally have some different perspective on life than non-gun owners. Of course, it's not a black and white topic, but there are discernable differences. I can make a list, if you'd like.

IF there a plethora of guns? There are already 300 million guns out there! The market is already saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. If the criminals and crazies out there have a gun already or can get an illegal one easily, then why should they make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one legally to defend themselves?

You think that statement sounds logical?

[F430murci]

IF there a plethora of guns? There are already 300 million guns out there! The market is already saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. If the criminals and crazies out there have a gun already or can get an illegal one easily, then why should they make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one legally to defend themselves?

You think that statement sounds logical?

It sounds logical if you abide by theory that who has the largest weapon wins theory. I still believe we can live in peace without shooting one another.

[maidu]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

[submaniac]

Alright F430murci, since you asked (or otherwise I wouldn't mention it), alot of things strike me as "suspicious".

First is your claim that attorneys had to submit a “Hipa” waiver as part of the application to be admitted to practice law, and that gun owners should have the same kind of background check. To begin with, it’s not “Hipa” it’s “HIPAA”. I’m not one for pointing out spelling mistakes, but that one…well, I don’t know how you could not know HIPAA if you practice. I’ve spent a lot of time subpoenaing medical records, thus I had to know HIPAA. I am admitted to more than one state, and had to do multiple applications and I have never had to fill out a HIPAA waiver on any state. I googled it, and couldn’t find one state which required a HIPAA as a part of the standard application (it may be supplementary if the State Bar finds “issues” but it doesn’t look to be standard requirement.) The state you are from, Florida, here’s their admissions packet: www.floridabarexam.org/public/main.nsf/checklistnoreg.html

There’s no HIPAA waiver in it. It makes no sense to me about how every applicant must submit to a HIPAA waiver. The waiver is a waiver to obtain (psych medical) records. Even if an applicant submitted a HIPAA waiver, the State Bar would still have to spend money to subpoena the records. On the Civil RICO case I am working on, I had to subpoena bank records from BofA, and it’s 50 cents a page, or it would have been over $8,000 for everything. A State Bar is not going to spend a couple hundred to thousands of dollars subpoenaing the medical records of every applicant.

Secondly, as I am working on a Civil RICO in Federal Court (and I hate the FRCP by the way) the alleging an effect on interstate commerce is not required for a Civil RICO. Funny, if you are right, I should have been hit with a Rule 12( motion. All that is really required for Civil RICO is at least the commissioning of two enumerated predicate acts.

Thirdly, you referred U.S. v. Lopez as “that Lopez case”. It’s not that Lopez case, it is THE Lopez case. Lopez was the first time in 50 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever struck down a Federal statue on grounds of lack of authority under the Commerce Clause. On any list of significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, it’s on it. It’s one of the most significant cases ever.

It’s a case taught in law schools. I spent weeks being lectured on that case. I don’t know how anyone could not know that case because you will need to know it if you want to have any possibility of passing a bar examination. The Multistate Bar Examination (hereinafter “MBE”) is the multiple choice part of the examination that every state uses. The questions they ask is they give you a law (“state x enacts a law which says”) and then they ask you whether the law would be enforceable or would be struck down, and on what grounds it would be struck down upon. So you’d have to know which laws would be subject to strict scrutiny (race), which laws are subject to intermediate scrutiny (such as immigration status), and which are subject to the rationally related test (most everything else). On top of that you’d need to know U.S. v. Lopez because it represents the upper most limit of the Federal government’s authority under the Constitution to enact laws, and stands for the proposition that the Federal government does not have a general police power as general police powers are those reserved for the individual states, since they were not explicitly granted to the Federal government at the time the Constitution was ratified. The Federal government is limited in its authority to such things as international relations with other countries, and interstate commerce. If it’s a general police power, the Federal government doesn’t have it.

So when you’re talking about (in your previous post) “in my experience the Federal authorities are better able to regulate”, my thinking is “huh”?!? How are you going to get past the fact the Federal government constitutionally doesn’t have general police powers. See U.S. v. Lopez (1995 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 514 U.S. 549 at 567:

“To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

Fourthly you go onto Heller. Now I (as well as other people) have been paying attention to Heller since before it was decided and we were all hoping that it would be granted certiorari to resolve the entire “bear arms in a militia” question. Heller said that the second amendment was not limited to an armed militia but the 2^nd Amendment encompassed self defense; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2817 to 2818:

“As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[27] banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F.3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”

You say “Scalia, in dicta, contemplated that only certain limited types of weapons may be within the ambit of or protected by the Second Amendment. Scalia is Heller and publically has consistently articulated that the 18th century framers of the constitution permitted bans on certain types of weapons leaving door wide open for gun control.”

Heller and Scalia does not say that. If it says it, then you cite the exact quotes.

[submaniac]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

Well that's the thing. D.C. v. Heller:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The Supreme Court went through the entire historical definition of "militia". "Militia" does not mean now what it means at the time the Constitution was drafted. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, "Militia" referred to able bodied men of fighting age. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it did not just refer to an organized military unit, and thus the 2nd Amendment applies to the right of self defense as well.

[gl555]

Alright F430murci, since you asked (or otherwise I wouldn't mention it), alot of things strike me as "suspicious".

First is your claim that attorneys had to submit a “Hipa” waiver as part of the application to be admitted to practice law, and that gun owners should have the same kind of background check. To begin with, it’s not “Hipa” it’s “HIPAA”. I’m not one for pointing out spelling mistakes, but that one…well, I don’t know how you could not know HIPAA if you practice. I’ve spent a lot of time subpoenaing medical records, thus I had to know HIPAA. I am admitted to more than one state, and had to do multiple applications and I have never had to fill out a HIPAA waiver on any state. I googled it, and couldn’t find one state which required a HIPAA as a part of the standard application (it may be supplementary if the State Bar finds “issues” but it doesn’t look to be standard requirement.) The state you are from, Florida, here’s their admissions packet: www.floridabarexam.org/public/main.nsf/checklistnoreg.html

There’s no HIPAA waiver in it. It makes no sense to me about how every applicant must submit to a HIPAA waiver. The waiver is a waiver to obtain (psych medical) records. Even if an applicant submitted a HIPAA waiver, the State Bar would still have to spend money to subpoena the records. On the Civil RICO case I am working on, I had to subpoena bank records from BofA, and it’s 50 cents a page, or it would have been over $8,000 for everything. A State Bar is not going to spend a couple hundred to thousands of dollars subpoenaing the medical records of every applicant.

Secondly, as I am working on a Civil RICO in Federal Court (and I hate the FRCP by the way) the alleging an effect on interstate commerce is not required for a Civil RICO. Funny, if you are right, I should have been hit with a Rule 12( motion. All that is really required for Civil RICO is at least the commissioning of two enumerated predicate acts.

Thirdly, you referred U.S. v. Lopez as “that Lopez case”. It’s not that Lopez case, it is THE Lopez case. Lopez was the first time in 50 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever struck down a Federal statue on grounds of lack of authority under the Commerce Clause. On any list of significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, it’s on it. It’s one of the most significant cases ever.

It’s a case taught in law schools. I spent weeks being lectured on that case. I don’t know how anyone could not know that case because you will need to know it if you want to have any possibility of passing a bar examination. The Multistate Bar Examination (hereinafter “MBE”) is the multiple choice part of the examination that every state uses. The questions they ask is they give you a law (“state x enacts a law which says”) and then they ask you whether the law would be enforceable or would be struck down, and on what grounds it would be struck down upon. So you’d have to know which laws would be subject to strict scrutiny (race), which laws are subject to intermediate scrutiny (such as immigration status), and which are subject to the rationally related test (most everything else). On top of that you’d need to know U.S. v. Lopez because it represents the upper most limit of the Federal government’s authority under the Constitution to enact laws, and stands for the proposition that the Federal government does not have a general police power as general police powers are those reserved for the individual states, since they were not explicitly granted to the Federal government at the time the Constitution was ratified. The Federal government is limited in its authority to such things as international relations with other countries, and interstate commerce. If it’s a general police power, the Federal government doesn’t have it.

So when you’re talking about (in your previous post) “in my experience the Federal authorities are better able to regulate”, my thinking is “huh”?!? How are you going to get past the fact the Federal government constitutionally doesn’t have general police powers. See U.S. v. Lopez (1995 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 514 U.S. 549 at 567:

“To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

Fourthly you go onto Heller. Now I (as well as other people) have been paying attention to Heller since before it was decided and we were all hoping that it would be granted certiorari to resolve the entire “bear arms in a militia” question. Heller said that the second amendment was not limited to an armed militia but the 2^nd Amendment encompassed self defense; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2817 to 2818:

“As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[27] banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F.3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”

You say “Scalia, in dicta, contemplated that only certain limited types of weapons may be within the ambit of or protected by the Second Amendment. Scalia is Heller and publically has consistently articulated that the 18th century framers of the constitution permitted bans on certain types of weapons leaving door wide open for gun control.”

Heller and Scalia does not say that. If it says it, then you cite the exact quotes.

F430murci is just going to post that he doesn't read more then 2-3 sentences per post so he won't respond to you. I mean he did the same thing in response to your previous post about the 'differences' between an 'assault weapon' and a hunting rifle. The pseudo lawyer doesn't make arguments, he just misdirects people and call them names, not to mention makes up and lies about the 'statistics' he posts.

[Scott]

Further discussion of other posters is going to get you a holiday. It's off-topic. So is who went to law school and where and when and how many states in which they can practice and whose got the biggest.....

Stay on topic please.

[submaniac]

It's not you, it's not Scott, it's Thaivisa policy. No one but admin/moderators can start a new topic in the news section. Thavisa subscribes to a news feed. the articles in "News" are from there. It needs to be understood that news articles are copyright protected, and for the articles printed here Thaivisa has agreements with the publications/agencies to publish. You can't just post any old news article or topic. The original news publisher might not allow the use of their article outside their own publication. For example, Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow others to use their news articles. If anyone is allowed to link a news article, Thaivisa may run into copyright ownership issues.

[gatorsoft]

It's not you, it's not Scott, it's Thaivisa policy. No one but admin/moderators can start a new topic in the news section. Thavisa subscribes to a news feed. the articles in "News" are from there. It needs to be understood that news articles are copyright protected, and for the articles printed here Thaivisa has agreements with the publications/agencies to publish. You can't just post any old news article or topic. The original news publisher might not allow the use of their article outside their own publication. For example, Bangkok Post and Phuketwan do not allow others to use their news articles. If anyone is allowed to link a news article, Thaivisa may run into copyright ownership issues.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Scott]

A post discussing moderation has been deleted. Please be aware of the rules about discussion of moderation in the open forum:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy. Members should not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

[capcc76]

Alright F430murci, since you asked (or otherwise I wouldn't mention it), alot of things strike me as "suspicious".

First is your claim that attorneys had to submit a “Hipa” waiver as part of the application to be admitted to practice law, and that gun owners should have the same kind of background check. To begin with, it’s not “Hipa” it’s “HIPAA”. I’m not one for pointing out spelling mistakes, but that one…well, I don’t know how you could not know HIPAA if you practice. I’ve spent a lot of time subpoenaing medical records, thus I had to know HIPAA. I am admitted to more than one state, and had to do multiple applications and I have never had to fill out a HIPAA waiver on any state. I googled it, and couldn’t find one state which required a HIPAA as a part of the standard application (it may be supplementary if the State Bar finds “issues” but it doesn’t look to be standard requirement.) The state you are from, Florida, here’s their admissions packet:

There’s no HIPAA waiver in it. It makes no sense to me about how every applicant must submit to a HIPAA waiver. The waiver is a waiver to obtain (psych medical) records. Even if an applicant submitted a HIPAA waiver, the State Bar would still have to spend money to subpoena the records. On the Civil RICO case I am working on, I had to subpoena bank records from BofA, and it’s 50 cents a page, or it would have been over $8,000 for everything. A State Bar is not going to spend a couple hundred to thousands of dollars subpoenaing the medical records of every applicant.

Secondly, as I am working on a Civil RICO in Federal Court (and I hate the FRCP by the way) the alleging an effect on interstate commerce is not required for a Civil RICO. Funny, if you are right, I should have been hit with a Rule 12( motion. All that is really required for Civil RICO is at least the commissioning of two enumerated predicate acts.

All state bars gain access and bar applicants are required to submit authorization and release forms for yjr following:

Florida Board of Bar Examiners

Bar Application - Section A

26.a. Mental Health

During the last 10 years, have you been hospitalized for treatment of any of the following: schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, bipolar or major depressive mood disorder; drug or alcohol abuse; impulse control disorder, including kleptomania, pyromania, explosive disorder, pathological or compulsive gambling; or paraphilia such as pedophilia, exhibitionism, or voyeurism? If yes, identify for which of the listed conditions you were hospitalized for treatment, state the beginning and ending dates of each hospitalization, and the name and complete address of each hospital or treatment facility and the name and address of the treating doctor or professional during your hospitalization. Please direct each such professional and hospital and/or other facility to furnish to the Board any information the Board may request with respect to any such hospitalization, consultation, treatment or diagnosis. "Professional" includes a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist or mental health counselor.

Florida Board of Bar Examiners

Bar Application - Section A

26.b. Mental Health - Continued

During the last 5 years, have you received treatment for (whether or not you were hospitalized) or have you received a diagnosis of any of the following: schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder; bipolar or major depressive mood disorder; drug or alcohol abuse; impulse control disorder, including kleptomania, pyromania, explosive disorder, pathological or compulsive gambling; or paraphilia such as pedophilia, exhibitionism, or voyeurism? If yes, identify for which of the listed conditions you were treated or of which you received a diagnosis, state the beginning and ending dates of each consultation or treatment period, and the name and address of the treating doctor or professional who treated you or who made such diagnosis. Also state the name(s) of any medication prescribed for you during treatment. Please direct each such professional and hospital and/or other facility to furnish to the Board any information the Board may request with respect to any such hospitalization, consultation, treatment or diagnosis. "Professional" includes a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist or mental health counselor.

Florida Board of Bar Examiners

Bar Application - Section A

26.c. Mental Health - Continued

During the past twelve months have you been hospitalized for treatment of any mental, emotional, or psychiatric illness, whether or not the diagnosis was one listed in Item 26.a.? If yes, please provide the name and complete address of the hospital in which the treatment took place, and the name and address of the attending doctor. Please direct each such professional and hospital and/or other facility to furnish to the Board any information the Board may request with respect to any such hospitalization, consultation, treatment or diagnosis. "Professional" includes a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, psychotherapist or mental health counselor.

[capcc76]

Alright F430murci, since you asked (or otherwise I wouldn't mention it), alot of things strike me as "suspicious".

Secondly, as I am working on a Civil RICO in Federal Court (and I hate the FRCP by the way) the alleging an effect on interstate commerce is not required for a Civil RICO. Funny, if you are right, I should have been hit with a Rule 12( motion. All that is really required for Civil RICO is at least the commissioning of two enumerated predicate acts.

RICO statute, 18 usc 1962b and c states:

(b)It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

Edited January 1, 2013 by capcc76

[Exsexyman]

If you want to point out the things you are wrong on that makes me doubt, I can do it. If you really want me to, that is.

Careful submaniac, you don't know who you are dealing with. Here is a quote from F430murci on another thread currently running on world news. "Do you not realise i am a surfer and only interested in facts'!

[chuckd]

If you want to point out the things you are wrong on that makes me doubt, I can do it. If you really want me to, that is.

Careful submaniac, you don't know who you are dealing with. Here is a quote from F430murci on another thread currently running on world news. "Do you not realise i am a surfer and only interested in facts'!

He's also liable to run over you with either his Ferrari or his Lamborghini.

[Scott]

I think we can move back on the topic now.

[koheesti]

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

I take it Scalia got his point across in 3 sentences?

[maidu]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

Well that's the thing. D.C. v. Heller:

http://scholar.googl...s=1&oi=scholarr

The Supreme Court went through the entire historical definition of "militia". "Militia" does not mean now what it means at the time the Constitution was drafted. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, "Militia" referred to able bodied men of fighting age. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it did not just refer to an organized military unit, and thus the 2nd Amendment applies to the right of self defense as well.

It appears the middle sentence above contradicts the last sentence. If 'militia' referred to 'able-bodied men of fighting age' at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment, then that's likely what the drafters were thinking. Hence, that's how the law should be interpreted. From what you wrote above, it sounds like the current supreme court is changing the definition of 'militia' (to fit modern proclivities) and to comply with the NRA and its fanatical lust for guns. If looked at from that perspective, the current supremes were plain wrong in their interpretation, and at least half of gun owners should not be legally allowed to own guns. Of the general population, a relatively small % (perhaps 17%) fit the description; 'able bodied men of fighting age.'

Also, the drafters of the 2nd amenment could have done a better job with the text, but that's another story.

[capcc76]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

Well that's the thing. D.C. v. Heller:

http://scholar.googl...s=1&oi=scholarr

The Supreme Court went through the entire historical definition of "militia". "Militia" does not mean now what it means at the time the Constitution was drafted. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, "Militia" referred to able bodied men of fighting age. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it did not just refer to an organized military unit, and thus the 2nd Amendment applies to the right of self defense as well.

It appears the middle sentence above contradicts the last sentence. If 'militia' referred to 'able-bodied men of fighting age' at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment, then that's likely what the drafters were thinking. Hence, that's how the law should be interpreted. From what you wrote above, it sounds like the current supreme court is changing the definition of 'militia' (to fit modern proclivities) and to comply with the NRA and its fanatical lust for guns. If looked at from that perspective, the current supremes were plain wrong in their interpretation, and at least half of gun owners should not be legally allowed to own guns. Of the general population, a relatively small % (perhaps 17%) fit the description; 'able bodied men of fighting age.'

Also, the drafters of the 2nd amenment could have done a better job with the text, but that's another story.

See # 2:.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

( The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

[gl555]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

Well that's the thing. D.C. v. Heller:

http://scholar.googl...s=1&oi=scholarr

The Supreme Court went through the entire historical definition of "militia". "Militia" does not mean now what it means at the time the Constitution was drafted. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, "Militia" referred to able bodied men of fighting age. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it did not just refer to an organized military unit, and thus the 2nd Amendment applies to the right of self defense as well.

It appears the middle sentence above contradicts the last sentence. If 'militia' referred to 'able-bodied men of fighting age' at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment, then that's likely what the drafters were thinking. Hence, that's how the law should be interpreted. From what you wrote above, it sounds like the current supreme court is changing the definition of 'militia' (to fit modern proclivities) and to comply with the NRA and its fanatical lust for guns. If looked at from that perspective, the current supremes were plain wrong in their interpretation, and at least half of gun owners should not be legally allowed to own guns. Of the general population, a relatively small % (perhaps 17%) fit the description; 'able bodied men of fighting age.'

Also, the drafters of the 2nd amenment could have done a better job with the text, but that's another story.

As smart as some us TV posters think we are, I really doubt any of us are in the position to decide whether the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is 'plain wrong' or not. But that's just me.

[MrRealDeal]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted ....... So whats the part thats not being adhered to well enough ? Perhaps it's the part that says "well regulated" . Most of these killings come from mentally ill people getting guns not stored reasonably in the homes they live in , so that would be a good start. Having a milita with inferior wepons is obviously not the intent of the amendment , it's also obviously not the intent of the amendment to have poor regulations allowing crazy people access to assult wepons in their own houses. The answer is to follow the amendment and regulate the milita a little better. ....... milita means every citizen in case someone didnt know. You can't regulate every bad act from happening but we can do a little better in terms of storage where it involves children and crazy people.

I guess my main point is that their is a lot of middle ground in terms of following the amendment that we should try before deciding to scrap the entire thing. That middle ground takes the form of regulation due to the irisponsible actions of a few just like pretty much all regulation does.

I think it's absurd to think that the founders who wrote it somehow didn't realise wepons would evolve to become more dangerous over time ...... thats a nonsense red herring argument thats irelevant to the spirit of the amendment anyhow.

Edited January 3, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[F430murci]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution of the US less than 20 years after the Revolutionary War ('War of Secession' for Brits). Here is its text: "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."

We don't know precisely what US lawmakers at that time were thinking, Among other things, it was a means to enable regular people (farmers, shopkeepers, etc) to form up in militias, at a moment's notice - to counter threats to the community or their fledgling republic. They would already have rifles, and became known at that time as 'Minute Men' (not to be confused with Asian men wriggling between sheets). US forefathers had no inkling of semi-automatic weapons and such which would get developed in the ensuing 240+ years. If they had, they might well have omitted the 2nd part of the Amendment's key sentence, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms." and just kept the primary part of the text, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ......shall not be infringed." But, of course, we can't go back and show them the future genie their words let out of the bottle.

I would point out it's not following the constitution that gets America in trouble it's NOT following it ..... We know exactly what they were thinking , they were thinking that the people should have arms to keep the government in check .... right or wrong thats what they wanted ....... So whats the part thats not being adhered to well enough ? Perhaps it's the part that says "well regulated" . Most of these killings come from mentally ill people getting guns not stored reasonably in the homes they live in , so that would be a good start. Having a milita with inferior wepons is obviously not the intent of the amendment , it's also obviously not the intent of the amendment to have poor regulations allowing crazy people access to assult wepons in their own houses. The answer is to follow the amendment and regulate the milita a little better. ....... milita means every citizen in case someone didnt know. You can't regulate every bad act from happening but we can do a little better in terms of storage where it involves children and crazy people.

I guess my main point is that their is a lot of middle ground in terms of following the amendment that we should try before deciding to scrap the entire thing. That middle ground takes the form of regulation due to the irisponsible actions of a few just like pretty much all regulation does.

I think it's absurd to think that the founders who wrote it somehow didn't realise wepons would evolve to become more dangerous over time ...... thats a nonsense red herring argument thats irelevant to the spirit of the amendment anyhow.

The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), cautioned that like most constitutional rights, the individual right to keep and bear arms, and to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, is not an unlimited right to carry arms for any sort of confrontation and that, as recognized by prior commentary and case law, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court therefore not only identified presumptively lawful regulatory measures but also recognized an important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms based on the type of weapon in question. The Court stated that, as prior case law, U.S. v. Miller, 1939-1 C.B. 373, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 39-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9513, 22 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶331 (1939), had explained, the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time of its adoption, a limitation that the Court stated was supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Note that in a later district court opinion in that case, Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2010), a case construing the District of Columbia Firearms Registration Amendment Act, which was promulgated in an effort to cure the constitutional defects in District of Columbia firearms laws identified in the Heller case, the court held that a ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices did not violate the Second Amendment, holding that these had properly been determined by the District of Columbia Council to be "military-style weapons of war," made for offensive military use, and holding that the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices was not to be equated with the trigger lock regulation that the Heller case had invalidated.

In U.S. v. Majid, 2010 WL 5129297 (N.D. Ohio 2010), a case declining to dismiss a count of an indictment charging the defendant with possessing an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5861(d), the court rejected the argument that the statute is unconstitutional in light of the Heller decision. The court noted that the defendant argued that because of the commonness of the firearm in question, a Colt AR-15 rifle with a barrel length of 9.5 inches, which he alleged was a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun overwhelmingly used by modern U.S. and NATO troops, the restriction on the length and other technical restrictions violated the tenets of the Heller decision. The court noted that the Heller decision had stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, and that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court stated that although the defendant had presented documents regarding the commonness of the weapon in question, it agreed with the government that the short-barrel AR-15 is not a weapon typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court noted, moreover, that the law did not prohibit anyone from possessing an AR-15, but only required registration, and that the defendant needed only to purchase a barrel longer than 16 inches to bring the weapon into compliance or to get a license to possess the weapon with a shorter barrel. The court also declined to permit the defendant to present facts at trial on the commonality of the AR-15 and the necessity of his having it for his employment and to protect his home, noting among other things that although he questioned the statute's constitutionality as applied to his case, a jury trial was not the appropriate forum to challenge the constitutionality of this statute; nor had he shown any basis upon which he would be permitted to legally possess the unregistered firearm.

A court recognized that dangerous and unusual weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment in U.S. v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1369, 173 L. Ed. 2d 591 (2009), a case holding that a defendant's possession of a machine gun and a sawed-off shotgun was not reasonably related to a well-regulated militia and thus was not protected by the Second Amendment. The court noted that in the Heller case, the United States Supreme Court had noted that a prior decision, U.S. v. Miller, 1939-1 C.B. 373, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 39-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9513, 22 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶331 (1939), had held that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns, and had explained in that decision that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. The court therefore found that possession of the guns was not protected by the Second Amendment, stating that machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. The court noted that at trial, the defendant had focused his Second Amendment arguments on his claim of a right to possess the guns because they were military weapons and he was a member of the militia, and not a claim of an individual right to possess a machine gun or unregistered sawed-off shotgun, but stated that even if the defendant had raised the latter argument at trial, it would find that his possession of the guns was not protected under the Heller decision.

56 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 (Originally published in 2011)

[F430murci]

Alright F430murci, since you asked (or otherwise I wouldn't mention it), alot of things strike me as "suspicious".

You say “Scalia, in dicta, contemplated that only certain limited types of weapons may be within the ambit of or protected by the Second Amendment. Scalia is Heller and publically has consistently articulated that the 18th century framers of the constitution permitted bans on certain types of weapons leaving door wide open for gun control.”

Heller and Scalia does not say that. If it says it, then you cite the exact quotes.

Actual text from Heller opinion:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

Scalia on Fox News during July 29, 2012, interview with Chris Wallace:

Establishment “originalist” Scalia tells “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace why, when they wrote “shall not be infringed,” the Framers really meant to say “subject to reasonable restrictions.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told "Fox News Sunday" that "the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."

Examiner commentary regarding Chris Wallace interview with Scalia:

"While treated as a breaking revelation to the point of garnering the headline position on The Drudge Report at this writing, in big red letters, no less, Scalia’s position is hardly news to those who pay attention to such things. The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates."

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example . . . Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Edited January 3, 2013 by F430murci