Comments on: I do not think it means what he thinks it means

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:09:01 +0000

Yeah, ironic isn’t it. While I don’t care for the bill, it doesn’t really upset me. I’m rather lukewarm on it.

Thanks for the comment.

By: Andy Barniskis

Andy Barniskis — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:48:07 +0000

I truly love it (NOT!) when a bill that violates the constitution, cites the constitution in its preamble.

I like to think that concept was invented here in Pennsylvania, when Act 17 of 1995, a gun control bill that violated our state constitution eight ways to Sunday, cited Article I, Section 21 (our state “Second Amendment” in its preamble. The author of that preamble contended that his words “made the state constitution more powerful” (!) but many of us thought it weakened the constitution by creating a precedent that the “rights of the citizens” encompassed gun control.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:57:42 +0000

Hit print screen then paste into a word document or image file.

By: Captain Holly

Captain Holly — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:53:35 +0000

Not wishing to start another NRA vs GOA flame war, but the idea that there was “gun control” in the bill was started by the GOA.

They claim the two amendments *might* be someday construed to require trigger locks and ban rifle ammo.

Amusing aside: Up until a few days ago, the GOA had an update on their website claiming to have “stopped” S.397 in its tracks and that it would not be considered this year. It got taken down the day after the bill passed.

I really need to figure out how to do screen captures.