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!
Are the funds in escrow?
Contestant #3
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.
He is making the absurd suggestion that the successful challenger litigate his case to completion.
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.
Let’s see… I’ll have to go to law school first… uh… make it a million and I’ll give it a shot.
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.
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”.
pathunt:
If you have something substantive to say, say so. Otherwise, butt out.
Do you accept the challenge or not?
Look, man. I agree with you. Really. Try not to get your panties in a wad.
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]
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
-
-
- I will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove that women and minorities deserve to vote. - MC
-
-
-
- I will pay $10,000 to anyone who can prove that women and minorities deserve to vote. - MC
-
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
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
jdv:
“Put up or shut up!” – jdv
-Monte
“Oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.” – some Chinese guy
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.
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:
and:
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.”
Gee, where’d he go?