A HUGE AMOUNT OF LITIGATION TO BE FORTHCOMING . . .

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I

CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten,
or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, . . .
in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States,
. . .
They shall be fined not more than $10,000
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment
for any term of years or for life.

§§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State,
Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . .
shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

maybe all the gun owners could shoot all the non gun owners (you'd be saving them from becoming victims of crime)

then you could battle it out with the criminals

it would make a great TV show

BETTER to $ue them.

but not nearly as entertaining

The overseas coverage is hilarious, here's a sample. Article with title "Guns 'n Robes"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/gun_control_and_supreme_court?source=hptextfeature

cont'd

so's some of the domestic coverage, with this guy raising a new concern about the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment: imho a very real concern http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/what-bolstering-gun-rights-will-mean/

Don't you love the British headline, "Guns 'n Robes"? I'd like to add it as a forum tag but I worry it would be mistaken for graffiti.

I love it. That 's a nice picture (tho not enuf guns in it).





David

Imho "Guns 'n Robes" is more descriptive than the boring combination of "guns" and "legal" tagging the thread here. But I refrained from adding it as it's probably graffiti. Sadly.

This is a quote from James Alan Fox, one of the law professors joining in the amicus brief
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_RespondentAmCuCrimJusticeProfs.pdf filed in support of Chicago and is inadvertently humorous (on the NYT link)

Well yes that's true! And these are the same urban areas which have been imposing gun restrictions, so how did the amici conclude that this statistic was ever an argument FOR Chicago? Huh?

or guns UNDER robes





David

Gun ownership, with a permit to carry same, demonstrates independence and a willingness
to fight to defend one's self and family. This is not something that liberals are likely to admire.

TAKING UP ARMS

i have been fortunate to not have to feel i needed a weapon to fight for or defend anyone, as for guns, i admit, i don't get handguns, i've fired them, i guess they're fun, like most diversions i got bored pretty quickly, i have no problem with long guns, most of my neighbours (in canada) own them and hunt regularly

the fight in the states is a moot point, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, the guns are out there, i'm glad that canada has strict policy on handguns, it's not stopped guns from getting on the streets and it hasn't stopped gun violence, but i've never felt threatened or in danger when out on the streets of a large city

I can accept licensure of the right to bear defensive guns
on an interim, transitory, ephemeral basis,
as we move toward restoring the status quo ante
as of the early 20th Century, when buying guns
was as freely accomplished as buying newspapers or books.

Gun control (licensure) means DISCRIMINATION by government,
but NOT just for a few minutes of preferred seating on a bus.
It means DISCRIMINATION as to your right to defend your life from predatory violence.


The Constitution requires "equal protection of the laws".
Gun control (licensure of the right to defend your life) is incompatible with equality
and can only exist -- legitimately -- if "equal protection of the laws" is repealed.





David

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." Dalai Lama

Salvador Dali.