There is no . . .

Posted in uncategorized on February 23rd, 2007 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |

nk Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Actually, on the Border Patrolmen case, Congress can construe its own statute to say that it did not intend to apply the enhancement provision (10 years) to law enforcement officers whom it obligates to carry and use guns in the same way as it intended to apply it to some scag who uses a stolen gun to rob a liquor store, and it is binding on the Courts. So, yeah, they could have done it the right way and they did it the publicity-value way.
Robert Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 11:27 am
First we lost the congress to the lobbiests and their own corruption, then we lost the bureacracy of government, first at the national level and then at the local, we lost the police and the courts, the Supreme court, the school systems, the last thing that we will lose is the armed forces if they aren’t gone already.

The only person that believes in constitutional government and the Bill of Rights is me, uncle, and a few other hardheads, and we are just being stubborn. It’s over.
Xrlq Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Wickard v. Filburn doesn’t stand for “there is no commerce clause,” a view that would nullify every federal law on the books that isn’t grounded in something else. “There is nothing but the commerce clause” is more like it.
countertop Says:
February 26th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Damn, I thought something happened to Spoon (other than the fact that he hasn’t posted since December 31, 2005)

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges

Categories