Anyone heard about the Haney case?

[mdlowry]

Just wondering who here has heard about the Haney case that may be going to SCOUS.



Some background:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gunlawsuits/haneyus50802sgoppbrf.pdf



Does anyone Bushmaster's phone number?

 

[mdlowry]

Just to start some disscution:

1. On August 25, 1999, petitioner appeared at a police

station and informed the officer on duty that he owned

semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms. Petitioner stated

that the firearms were not licensed and that the federal

government lacked authority to require him to obtain a license.

Law enforcement officials subsequently found two fully automatic

weapons in petitioner's car and house, along with literature

describing how to convert a semiautomatic firearm to an

automatic weapon. Petitioner admitted possession of the guns.

Pet. App. 2.

If the SCOUS decides to take this case, NFA '34 and GCA '68 could be declaired unconstutional. Of course, it could go the other way and say the 2nd only applies to the state's national guard.

 

[FATCAT]

The only way a case like this could go "the other way" and state that the 2nd only refers to state militias would be due to corrupt judges which this country is full of.



The US Constitution and various State constitution were written so that the common man could read and understand what was writen.



The "militia" clause simply states a fact that a well trained militia is necessary for a free State. And at that time as is now the militia is the people them selves.



The 2nd part states the natural right that people have the right to be armed to protect their freedom.



At that time it was a musket, today it would be any individual arm that would compete with what a current army would have ... machine guns included.



The founding fathers would not enumerate a right in the Bill of Rights that refered to the State (i. e. federal or state gov't), after they had just fought a long and bloody war againt a tyranical State ... that would make no sence!

 

[mdlowry]

Fatcat,



While I agree with you, the Soliciter General (Olsen) does not. The .pdf link in my first post is a brief prepared by Olsen (who works for Ashcroft). He is arguing for SCOTUS not to take the case. In refrence to Emerson where the 5th Circuit cort affirmed that the 2nd is an individual right (but can be infringed upon by the gov), Olsen writes:

And the court described the right in question as a right to possess firearms, such as a pistol, "that are suitable as personal, individual weapons," id. at 260 --a description that does not encompass the machineguns at issue here.

SCOTUS will decide in June if they will take this case. (Emerson is also on their list. )



As you mentioned, we do have some corrupt judges. I just wonder if the courts are willing to overturn 60+ years of victim disarmerment.

 

[mdlowry]

SCOUS avoids the issue yet again

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020610/ts_nm/court_guns_dc_1



The Supreme Court declined to hear both Haney and the Emerson case. It seems that they do not wish to rule on the Constutionality of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[The patriot]

I kinda figured they'd want to bounce it back down.

That's one hot potato they dont want to touch.

It's a shame, where this country is headed.....

Eric