PDA

View Full Version : I will pay $10,000...


05-27-1999, 11:52 PM
I will pay $10,000 to anyone who *successfully* challenges *any* US law, local, state, or Federal, on gun control, on 2nd Amendment grounds, plus *all* legal fees.

Put up or shut up!

05-28-1999, 04:40 AM
Are the funds in escrow?

------------------
Contestant #3

05-28-1999, 08:59 AM
What is a successful challenge? Do you mean you'll give me $10,000 if I cause a change in gun policy? Or do you mean that I only have to successfully challenge a gun law, meaning that if I contact my governor and tell him that some gun law is inept, I have successfully challenged it?

------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

05-28-1999, 03:41 PM
He is making the absurd suggestion that the successful challenger litigate his case to completion.

05-28-1999, 03:46 PM
Well, to mount a constitutional challenge in any state court (not to mention one likely to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court), you're going to need a lawyer. And if you want to hire a lawyer to take a case of that magnitude and work it to completion, you'd better be offering a heck of a lot more than 10,000 bucks.

05-28-1999, 03:53 PM
Let's see.. I'll have to go to law school first.. uh.. make it a million and I'll give it a shot.

05-28-1999, 10:13 PM
BigIron, Jodih, and Nickrz:

I said I would pay *all* legal fees. What are you worried about? Hire a lawyer and go to it!

Or is all your phony baloney just talk?

Put up or shut up! Get a lawyer, successfully challenge ANY US law on gun control on 2nd Amendment grounds, and I will pay your lawyer/legal fees *plus* $10,000.

What are you waiting for? Is your bullshit being called?

And where are you, ExTank? Nothing to say?

You're bullshit is challenged; you have believed the NRA's crap and now I ask you to put up or shut up. Any takers? Ask your pal Rush Limbaugh.

05-28-1999, 10:38 PM
Firstly, I doubt there are any laws that could be challenged on Second Ammendment grounds, since if there were, the NRA already would have.

Secondly, jdv, chill out or take it to the "Pit".

05-28-1999, 10:42 PM
pathunt:

If you have something substantive to say, say so. Otherwise, butt out.

Do you accept the challenge or not?

05-28-1999, 11:53 PM
Look, man. I agree with you. Really. Try not to get your panties in a wad.

05-29-1999, 01:57 AM
jdv:

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

As none of the interested parties are still alive, you may make your check or m.o. payable to:

Monte R. Masters

Send it to:

REMOVED BY ADMINSTRATOR. PLEASE DO NOT POST ADDRESSES. YOUR HUMBLE TUBA DIVA
Thank You,
Monte


[Note: This message has been edited by TubaDiva]

05-30-1999, 09:00 AM
jdv:

Please ignore my previous post. It is obviously irrelevant to your challenge. I posted it at 2 a.m., on the far side of a 12 pack. I apologize for my drunken idiocy at that time.

I'll be back when (if) I find a proper example of a gun control law successfully challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. It's a lot harder, and more interesting, than I thought it would be. The Supreme Court has been sidestepping this issue for a long time. That leaves State and local, wich are more difficult to research.

-Monte

05-30-1999, 09:08 AM
- - - I will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove that women and minorities deserve to vote. - MC

05-30-1999, 09:08 AM
- - - I will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove that women and minorities deserve to vote. - MC

05-30-1999, 09:39 AM
That was easy. Please see:

http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html

Timothy Joe Emerson will probably be pleased to receive your $10,000.00. I'll let him know how to contact you.

-Monte

05-30-1999, 10:59 AM
jdv:

Timothy Joe Emerson is waiting for his money!

Put up or shut up!

------------------
"[He] beat his fist down upon the table and hurt his hand and became so
further enraged... that he beat his fist down upon the table even harder and
hurt his hand some more." -- Joseph Heller's Catch-22

06-01-1999, 10:55 AM
jdv:

"Put up or shut up!" -- jdv

-Monte


------------------
"Oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." -- some Chinese guy

06-01-1999, 10:40 PM
Gawd, can't you guys do better than a wife-beater and a stalker?

Emerson doesn't even come close, as his challenge was not to a gun control law, but to the validity of a restraining order. And at that, I doubt it will hold up under appeal--this judge seems to have shaky judgment and a thin hold on the facts. Can't even cite properly.

C'mon guys, you can do better than a dubious restraining order in Texas.

06-02-1999, 12:29 AM
You blithering idiot...

You know, when people start offering monetary challenges instead of quoting readily accessible cite, it's generally because they've lost it, and lost their argument as well.

I already cited twenty cases of gun control laws being overturned or struck downbased upon Second Amendment constitutionality in the "Second Amendment" thread.
Your response: "NRA Propaganda!"
You immediately hopped threads and started offering cash if anyone could de-bunk any gun-control law based on Second Amendment constitutionality.
Now two people have offered you just that, and your response was to call Mr. Emerson a wife-beater and a stalker, when Judge J. Sutton found no evidence to support such a claim, but granted the restraining order to preclude Mr. Emerson from liquidating any joint marital assests.
Then you go on to attack Judge S. Cummings' leagl acumen, as he dared issue a judicial ruling contravening your politico-socio worldview.
Emerson challenged the charges against him because he was arrested for felony possession of a firearm while under a restraining order first on grounds that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional under art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 3 of The United States Constitution.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) as being constitutional under art. 1 et. al., and declined to dismiss the felony possession charge on those grounds.
However....
Judge Cummings did his homework, and found substantial precedent to dismiss the indictment on both Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, saying:
"18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights. The statute allows, but does not require, that the restraining order include a finding that the person under the order represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)(C)(i). If the statute only criminalized gun possession based upon court orders with particularized findings of the likelihood of violence, then the statute would not be so offensive, because there would be a reasonable nexus between gun possession and the threat of violence. However, the statute is infirm because it allows one to be subject to federal felony prosecution if the order merely "prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against [an] intimate partner."
and:
"Emerson also contends that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He argues that the perfunctory, generic temporary orders issued in his divorce proceedings expose him to federal criminal liability for engaging in otherwise lawful conduct."

Now, before you start jumping up and down and screaming that 18 U.S.C. 922 is not a gun control law, be advised that elements of
18 U.S.C. are comprised of the following:
National Firearm Act (1934)
Gun Control Act (1968)
Firearm Owner's Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Prevention Act (1993)

And specifically, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) is a part of Brady Handgun Prevention Act.

Cough up the ducks, chucklehead.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"...candy from a baby."

06-02-1999, 02:44 PM
Gee, where'd he go?

06-03-1999, 08:14 PM
Wales?

06-03-1999, 09:57 PM
"You blithering idiot..."
---Ex Tank
----------------------------------------
Ain't he a riot? :)

Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! Source???

06-06-1999, 11:18 PM
ExTank:

Blithering idiot?

You are a gem. I made my offer and stick by it. You offered a case of a 'restraining order' not a challenge to the Second Amendment.

I have reviewed your "twenty cases" and none of them are challenges on Second Amendment grounds to a gun control law.

Perhaps if you could learn to read you'd have a better time arguing. Stop reacting and read, dude.

The NRA has been lieing to you for years. Stop blithering and DO THE CHALLENGE. Get the NRA to back you! Get a lawyer and challenge any gun control law in this country! Otherwise, you are just so much bullshit.

DO IT!

06-07-1999, 01:26 AM
You disingenuous shyster...

I can't challenge any gun control laws on the books because my Constitutional rights haven't been violated the way Mr. Emerson's have been.
Gun control laws in and of themselves are not violations of the Second Amendment; your spurious claims that the NRA opposes all gun control legislation is becoming tiresome and repetitive.
Perhaps you feel that if you keep repeating your lie, it will become accepted as truth.
And besides, neither myself or any organization can just walk up to the Supreme Court and say "Hey! You guys! Gimme a ruling!"
You claim to be a lawyer? And you don't know how the Federal Court system works?
Mr. Emerson's case, to wit: he was arrested and charged with felony possession of a handgun while under a temporary restraining order, was struck down on Second and Fifth Amendment Grounds.
The twenty cases I cited were struck down as unconstitutional, as they violated the right to keep and bear arms: there is only one amendment in the constitution where you will find the words "the right to keep and bear arms", and it's the Second Amendment.
Ergo, those twenty cases were struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
Try and twist words to distort the truth all you want; doesn't change the fact that there are some gun-control laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional on second amendment grounds, among others.


<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Mr. Emerson awaits his money."

06-07-1999, 06:28 PM
"You disingenuous shyster..."
---Ex Tank
-----------------------------
Heh heh.
---mangeorge
********************************************
"Perhaps if you could learn to read you'd have a better time arguing."
---jdv
-------------------------------
Whoa.
---mangeorge


Tsk, tsk.
Ex Tank obviously knows how to read.
And jdv is surely not a shyster.
C'mon you two, fight nice.
Makes for shorter and easier to follow posts.
Peace,
mangeorge

06-07-1999, 08:29 PM
Lieing? Maybe better spelling would make reading easier. Just a thought. I am not on any side of this debate, but maybe it should go to the Pit.

06-07-1999, 10:47 PM
OK, short post.

For the last time, ExTank, take me up on it or shut up. Quit quibbling and DO IT!

I'm tired of the name calling too. WHY DON'T YOU DO IT???

06-10-1999, 02:48 PM
[[BigIron, Jodih, and Nickrz:
I said I would pay *all* legal fees. What are you worried about? Hire a lawyer and go to it!

Or is all your phony baloney just talk?

Put up or shut up! Get a lawyer, successfully challenge ANY US law on gun control on 2nd Amendment grounds, and I will pay your lawyer/legal fees *plus* $10,000.

What are you waiting for? Is your bullshit being called? ]] jdv


No, but yours seemingly is. Your moronic challenge is one of the lamest attempts at an argument I have ever seen. Putting aside the fact that the successful challenger would have to put up his or her own money first and trust in he dubious proposition that you would eventually pony up at the end of the litigation, you are ignoring a rather fundamental litigation issue (one that makes me question your assertion of legal knowledge) -- the problem of standing.

Citizens cannot generally go around filing lawsuits seeking to have this or that law declared unconstitutional. Rather, you have to show to the court that you have a direct and concrete stake in the matter, and this must involve some legitimate legal dispute with another party. In this case, the laws you would seek to challenge are generally criminal laws, so to challenge one would likely require the challenger to break the law and get himself arrested, after which he or she could try to argue the law's constitutional infirmity. A gun dealer presumeably might be able to seek a declaratory judgement, but beyond that I am not sure. Perhaps there is an oddball exception here that would allow some less risky challenges, but I am not aware of any offhand.

In other words, this is a ridiculous and unrealistic "challenge" that has no place in any legitimate debate.


[[You're bullshit is challenged; you have believed the NRA's crap and now I ask you to put up or shut up. Any takers? Ask your pal Rush Limbaugh.]]


Just because I follow a reasonable reading of the text and history of the 2d Amendment means that Rush is my pal?

06-10-1999, 03:11 PM
The meaning of the US Constitution depends not only on legal opinions but the general consensus of the American public. It's like the Bible, people interpret it in many different ways.

For almost 100 years after the US Constitution was adopted, slavery was legal in this country. For longer than that, women were denied the right to vote.

Did the Founding Fathers mean for women to have the vote? Obviously not.

Depending on who you talk to, the second amendment will be interpreted as meaning "the right to bear arms applies to members of a regulated militia" or "the right to bear arms applies to Joe Q. Public".

If the vast majority of the US voting public was in favour of the "well-regulated militia" interpretation, then that's what the Supreme Court would eventually decide.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

06-10-1999, 06:13 PM
I'm not taking sides in the larger gun-control debate (whaddaya think I am, stupid?). But I must point out, jdv, that this entire moronic thread is based upon your challenge that someone step forward and prove you wrong. Apparently, you intend to just sit on the sidelines and veg while some opponent scurries around, spending time and LOTS of money to prove you wrong. The fact that no one will do so doesn't mean you're right -- it means they're smart.

The way it works is, you prove your own thesis. You don't demand someone else disprove it. It's like junior high -- do your own work.

06-10-1999, 06:22 PM
JDV: this message board, and its predecessor on AOL, conducted debates.
To keep any and all discussion from turning into "IS SO!"/"IS NOT", some unofficial guidelines were agreed upon by practice and were adopted. There is no one to enforce these guidelines but ourselves; however, those who tend to ignore these guidelines are generally labled "Troll" and, at best, ignored; at worst, mercilessly flamed whenever they de-lurk and post anything. Anything!
1. Refrain from sweeping generalizations; "all are such-and-such".
2. When you make a claim to something, back it up with "cite"; information from credible agencies and/or organizations, with a hyper-link or an internet address provided.
2.a When your opponent refutes your cite with a "counter-cite", have the courtesy to read it and acknowledge it, even if you disagree with it, and not flame them for daring to disagree with you
3. If you are going to list or enumerate facts/figures, your list should include not less than three entries; rule #2 applies here as well.
4. Facts/figures from organizations with an agenda are suspect: for instance, Drunk Driving Statistics from the MADD-site are generally suspect.
Not to say that their figures are lies, but they may be somewhat...lopsided.

[i]My NRA cites may be suspect by rule #4; but they are readily verifiable by a simple keyword searches at such places like <FONT COLOR="BLUE>"Comprehensive Legal Research Sites"</FONT> @ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/refcomp.htm or from <FONT COLOR="BLUE">"Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute"</FONT> @ http://www.law.cornell.edu/
I just figured, "Why re-invent the wheel?"

Now pay attention, JDV, as #5 is for you.

5.Debates on the board stay on the Board! When a debate degenerates to "You wanna say that to my face!?" or "I'll pay $10,000...", it's a generally accepted indication that the poster has lost it, and their argument as well. If you cannot find the information to back up your claims on the interent or from readily available books, and instead rely on spurious claims and challenges, then you have no business being in the debate.
6. Opinion, personal experience and anectdote do not make a argument. If you offer or interject them into a debate, it will not get your position any recognition, or make it any more valid. It will just be acknowledged as an individual's experience, and not necessarily indicative of a more general truth.
7. Capitalization, punctuation and spelling are appreciated, as are rules of grammar. However, it is considered bad form to point this out unless it is a glaring mistake that detracts from the message.
If the only thing you can respond to about your opponent's post is to nitpick capitalization, punctuation and grammar, it is generally accepted that your position is weak, as are you.
8. Rants are not arguments; they are what Dennis Miller does for HBO to elicit a laugh and provoke a thought. While there are some funny people on this board than can go one-on-one with Dennis Miller, that doesn't make an argument's point any more valid than a dry, boring cite.
9. I'm sure that there are a few others, but my stomach is rumbling and I haven't started supper yet.

These guidelines are unofficial. No one will THWAP you off the board if you don't abide by them.
They will however despise you, ignore you and flame you until you either amend your ways or leave.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"Now if we could just find ourselves a Sergeant-at-Arms..."

06-10-1999, 06:25 PM
I don't know where the red font came from; I proofed that post to a fare-thee-well...

06-11-1999, 07:25 AM
Depending on who you talk to, the second amendment will be interpreted as meaning "the right to bear arms applies to members of a regulated militia" or "the right to bear arms applies to Joe Q. Public".

If the vast majority of the US voting public was in favour of the "well-regulated militia" interpretation, then that's what the Supreme Court would eventually decide.

This is patently untrue. Part of the beauty of being appointed to the court for life is you are immune to the tides of public opinion. By way of example, the Court in the 1960s decided obscenity law and allowed the publication of certain books in periodicals in opposition to what the majority of people wanted. I doubt that the majority of people saw or approved of a Constitutional right to an abortion at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. And at a time when the public is nearly overwhelmingly in favor of Congressional term-limits, the courts have found them unconstitutional, at least at the Federal level.

06-11-1999, 10:51 PM
You keep blathering and claiming it's an 'unfair' challenge. There is nothing unfair about it. Go see a lawyer. Advise them that I will pay all expenses plus $10,000 to anyone who provides a successful challenge to *any* gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

"Ohh, the Supreme Court is against me!" "Ohh, the Supreme Court only follows public opinion!"

Stop with the excuses and bullshit. The NRA has told you this a guaranteed personal right and I say that's a load of crap. Why are there no takers, just talkers? Could it be that deep down you know it is just bullshit?

Time and again--JUST DO IT! TALK TO A LAWYER! Now, what is that going to hurt? The first consultation is free. Afraid what you will hear? I'll tell you what you'll hear; no way no how, get outta here, jack.

If you do find a lawyer willing to take your money, more power to you and less money to buy your sacred guns.

You can't win this one and you know it, so why don't you stop the wriggling and admit you haven't the guts to even look into it.

06-12-1999, 12:24 AM
This is patently untrue. Part of the beauty of being appointed to the court for life is you are immune to the tides of public opinion. By way of example, the Court in the 1960s decided obscenity law and allowed the publication of certain books in periodicals in opposition to what the majority of people wanted. I doubt that the majority of people saw or approved of a Constitutional right to an abortion at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. And at a time when the public is nearly overwhelmingly in favor of Congressional term-limits, the courts have found them unconstitutional, at least at the Federal level.


Perhaps I exaggerated a little, but the fact remains that the court decisisions do reflect the general opinions of the American Public.

Would a Supreme Court today say "A black man has no rights which the United States government is bound to recognize," as the majority opinion said in the Dred Scott Decision (1857)?

Would a Supreme Court have decided a constitutional right to abortion 100 years ago?

Would a Supreme Court have guaranteed the right to publication of "pornography" in 1800?

I bet not.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

06-12-1999, 12:50 AM
And at a time when the public is nearly overwhelmingly in favor of Congressional term-limits, the courts have found them unconstitutional, at least at the Federal level.

Also I forgot to add that I'm not sure how true that statement is. I tried to find a recent "unbiased" opinion poll and couldn't find anything.

I know at least that many congresspersons that ran on the term limits platform are now, of course, changing their mind and doing their best to get re-elected. Some of them having already been re-elected, I don't imagine that the public abhorrence of multiple terms in Congress is as severe as all that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/term031599.htm

As far as the other two examples go (Roe vs. Wade, obscenity laws) I didn't live in the US at the time and so don't know what the public sentiment was in the US.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

06-12-1999, 08:10 AM
jdv, I'm suddenly terribly, terribly interested in what other things in the Bill of Rights you consider to be "a load of crap" and feel we can just dispose with or ignore.

06-12-1999, 09:19 AM
pldennison, it is not the second amendment both he and I are having trouble with. It's the NRA's interpretation of it, and the total unwillingness to approach the Supreme Court to settle the question once and for all. With all the screaming about second amendment rights from the NRA and similar groups, when it comes to supporting, via legal and financial aid, ONE case on second amendment grounds, the silence is deafening. Amazing, isn't it, that one case can't be foundto bring before the Court!

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

06-12-1999, 04:37 PM
JDV: your ridiculous challenge has been called out for the absurdity that it is by not only myself, but Big Iron, PLDennison, Jodih, MRM and Krish; I specifically and respectfully redirect your attention to Big Iron's excellent civics lesson of Judicial Procedure, and encourage you to read thoroughly from the following cite:
http://comptonsv3.web.aol.com/ceo99-cgi/article?'fastweb?getdoc+viewcomptons+A+7670+46++U.S.%20Constitution'

I would earnestly beg you to consider the following exerpt from that cite:

"To minimize unjust decisions or infringement on the lawmaking prerogatives of Congress, the Supreme Court places limits on the kinds of decisions it makes. It does not make a decision unrelated to a specific case, nor does it issue advisory decisions. It does not decide on a constitutional question if a case can be disposed of on other grounds."

PatHunt is on your side of the debate and has basically agreed that your proposition is untenable.

I'm going to ask the board moderator to shut this thread down, as it has just turned into an "IS SO/IS NOT" flame war.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>

06-12-1999, 04:48 PM
I forgot to add:

After clicking on the link, scroll down to the "Supreme Court" link just before the text of The Constitution starts, and click it. The text I quoted comes from there.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>

06-13-1999, 08:32 AM
pldennison, it is not the second amendment both he and I are having trouble with.

I think you can let the boy speak for himself. Whatever you may think, he says that "the NRA says it is a guaranteed personal right and I say that is a load of crap." He obviously feels there is no such right despite the text, and I want to know what other rights he feels are a load of crap, probably because they make him uncomfortable.

FTR, I do not own a gun, have no plans to buy one, and am not a member of the NRA. I am, however, extremely touchy on the subject of civil liberties.

ExTank, has the NRA ever filed an amicus curae brief related to any gun law, as far as you know?

06-13-1999, 11:08 AM
JDV: I don't know if you live in the city or not, but my challege to you, and all people opposed to guns, put a large sign in your front yard saying "There are no guns in this household, not will there ever be!"
Sleep well!

06-13-1999, 11:11 AM
.....please excuse the typo (not to nor)

06-13-1999, 08:53 PM
Honestly, until you brought it up, I'd never heard of Amicus Curiae; it took some digging for me to find out what the hell it was.
Now that I know, I can honestly say: I don't know if the NRA or any other pro-gun organization have ever filed an Amicus Curiae.

However, your question piqued my interest, and I have submitted the question to the NRA-ILA and The Second Amendment Foundation.
When I have an answer, I'll post it here.

If they have filed even one, that would pretty well refute JDV's claim that the NRA and like don't have the courage to put their money where their mouth is.

If they haven't, you can be damned sure I'm going to inquire why; if the answer is not to my satisfaction, the NRA and I may soon be parting ways.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"If they can't walk it like they talk it, I wan't no part of 'em."

06-14-1999, 12:26 AM
Ex-Tank, you be one HONEST gun-nut(hee-hee!)
I'm sorry I wasn't learned enough to use that term in MY question. If you find out that the NRA did file, count me in for an apology. I'm not going to ask you to be honest in your finding, because I've ALWAYS found you to be intellectually honest, despite our philosophical differences.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

06-16-1999, 06:31 PM
Okay, I heard back from the NRA-ILA today, and here are their's and the SAF's responses:

Subj:Re: Contact from NRAhq web site: Membership
Date:6/16/99 9:22:03 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:ila-contact@nrahq.org
To:ExTank@aol.com

An amicus curiae brief is something which a party that is not directly involved with a particular court case can file in support of one of the parties that is involved with the case. NRA has filed a number of them in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future.

and:

Subj:RE: Amicus Curiae
Date:6/14/99 1:28:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From :DaveL@liberty.seanet.com (Dave LaCourse)
To:ExTank@aol.com

The Second Amendment Foundation has been around since 1974 and has both
filed many Amicus briefs as well as sponsored numerous lawsuits including
against the Clinton gun ban/ CA assault weapon ban, etc.

We are currently working on a brief for the Emerson case, since this could
be the Big One!

I am unhappy with the responses I received (naturally; they were exactly what I wanted to hear) and have sent this reply back to them:

Thanks to both organizations for your timely responses; the information is appreciated, as is the time you have taken to answer my question.
One other thing: other than the Emerson case, can you cite any other cases that your espective organizations have filed Amicus Curiae on?

If anyone wants to read the actual e-mail responses (the above are C&P), I will forward them to you at your request.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>

06-16-1999, 07:03 PM
Ex-Tank, did you ask if they filed an Amicus Curiae on 2nd Amendment grounds specifically?
I am curious as to what arguments they used in their filings. By the way, I DO appreciate the research you've done so far.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

06-16-1999, 09:16 PM
Thank you VERY much for the research! Did they happen to mention if the Briefs were filed on 2nd Amendment grounds or not? Just curious.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

06-18-1999, 10:11 PM
ExTank, you keep evading the issue. Are you going to file a challenge or not? Cite anything you want, I will pay all legal fees plus $10,000 if you are successful in challenging *ANY* US gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

Why do you keep blathering? DO IT!

I have said this over and over again and all you offer is bullshit. Do it or shut up. You are full of crap.

06-21-1999, 02:34 AM
{{You keep blathering and claiming it's an 'unfair' challenge. There is nothing unfair about it. Go see a lawyer. Advise them that I will pay all expenses plus $10,000 to anyone who provides a successful challenge to *any* gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.}} jdv

"As your attorney, I advise you not to rely on this person's representations."

06-21-1999, 02:38 AM
[[ExTank, you keep evading the issue. Are you going to file a challenge or not? Cite anything you want, I will pay all legal fees plus $10,000 if you are successful in challenging *ANY* US gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.]]jdv


Tell you what -- pony up the money first and then maybe you'll get some takers. Meanwhile, I'm still interested in how you think such a challenge could be raised short of getting oneself arrested.

06-21-1999, 02:14 PM
Anyone who actually wants an informed, brief, relatively unbiased report of how the second amendment has been interpreted through history, look at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment02/.

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on it, in 1939, it ruled that the right to bear arms only applied in the context of preserving a militia. I disagree with this ruling, but I accept it as the current law of the land.

I personally can't even parse the second amendment. What the heck is "being" in the sentance anyway? A gerund? The verb in a subordinate clause? I don't get it.

Hopefully, the Emerson case will bring it up again, (the right, not the grammar) and we'll get a more realistic ruling.

Cheers,
Quadell