Times change, people change.
If in fact it goes back, it will be a different court.
BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack something, you encapsulate it.
I'm certain you don't need an explanation.
Lew
Several years ago I worked as a Corrections Officer. One day while I was at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he was going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost him additional time when he was caught.
Dave N
And if caught at night with a gun in a domicile, it represents some really serious time.
The weapon is a real kicker.
Lew
It's quite possibly going back this year into the same court.
So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.
This is mid June lad, Suter is history.
Engage brain before keypad.
Think about it.
Hint: Trident & Net v: Sword & Shield
Lew
So? Hint, Mr. 'Engage brain'--Souter voted _against_.
Hint--clear communication is not your strong suit.
Have some customers who might take exception, but regardless, this part of the thread has become a boar.
I'm out of here.
Lew
That was his point.
Fine with me but please take your hog with you. Thanks....
He turned as I fired. I panicked.
Railway food still that bad, eh? They still do fried eggs floating on grease at the cafe on Paddington Platform 1?
He'd swallow your gun.
It has become a male pig?
In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
FWIW, under George the First there was a program where any criminal in possession of a firearm was referred to the Federal government _after_ he was convicted on state charges, with his state term starting after his Federal term was over. Clinton for whatever reason, and, I understand, over Janet Reno's protests (I'd like to get enough liquor down that woman to get her to tell me what she _really_ thinks about Clinton) , discontinued this program.
It seems the anti-gun crowd has recognized they won't get what they want in the foreseeable future. I heard Diane Feinstein say as much recently, they just don't have the votes in Congress because too many voters back home wouldn't take kindly to sweeping bans such as Feinstein is on record as supporting. So instead they're using the death of a thousand cuts method. E.g. if you can't outright ban guns then make it a pain in the ass to buy ammo; require training courses with difficult tests, permits, registration (all with steep fees); require inspections of home storage facilities and so on and so forth until owning a firearm is so much trouble many people just give up.
Similar tactics have been used in other countries, just keep raising the height of the hoops people have to jump through and eventually most of them won't try anymore. That's the sort of thing Washington DC was talking about doing right after the recent DC v. Heller decision. Many similar regulations have already been upheld by lower courts post-Heller, so those who figure Heller has changed the whole ballgame need to take a closer look. That decision will end total bans such as DC and Chicago have tried (with little effect on crime), but it won't result in many local, state and federal regulations and restrictions being scrapped. In fact, and perhaps ironically, the recent 9th Circuit decision that the 2nd Amendment does apply to state and local governments nonetheless upheld the right of a county to prohibit firearms (and thus a gun show) from county property. The Devil is in the details, and the Heller ruling doesn't mean your local govt. can't put *any* firearms restrictions or regulations in place.
I think some regulations make sense, safe storage laws for example. But when such laws are designed and enforced in such a way as to discourage firearms ownership rather than ensure public safety, well that's another story.
And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health care.
I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their rigidity or lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all three. Or maybe, it's fear of being punished for thinking for themselves prevents a more realistic scenario.
Different group of people and certainly a different mindset. Don't know too much about US healthcare other than I'm led to believe you need bucketloads of money or have been investing in insurance for a long time to really benefit from it.
I'm sure someone will crucify me for saying that, but what the hell.
FTMP the same zombies who worked airport security for Wackenhut now work for TSA. If we go to a government insurance program, the private insurance industry will shed their dead wood.
You need to be gainfully employed at something other than a minimum wage job.
Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be better and use smarter people. Sad thing is that too many stupid people actually believe that.
As have home invasions, stabbings, assaults with or without deadly weapon (because those defending themselves are the ones who are prosecuted), robberies, etc.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.