Comments on: Texas Attorney General Abbott Files Brief with United States Supreme Court

By: BobF

BobF — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:19:20 +0000

I just got word from the NRA this morning that the Missouri Attorney General signed the Amicus Brief. I was glad to here that and am going to send him a thank you.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:43:21 +0000

Patrick, fair enough…

By: minuteman26

minuteman26 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:24:05 +0000

Fred – Read the breif yesterday and beleive the attorneys generals will be successful. If not then the court should be hung. Law was probably passed in the first place to keep Chicago pols from getting bumped off. You can see a guy coming at with a rifle. 26

By: Bloviating Zeppelin

Bloviating Zeppelin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:07:03 +0000

Molon labe.

By: Longstreet

Longstreet — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:13:53 +0000

I am happy to see that both my beloved CAROLINAS are signed on to this lawsuit. But, with Sotomayor on the court, it will be “stacked” against us. From here forward, bringing any kind of firearms suit before the Supreme Court risks opening the door just enough that the “stacked” court can rule against us and squash the 2nd amendment.

JDL

By: Patrick Sperry

Patrick Sperry — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:33:09 +0000

Fred, my “you people” reference was about all these lawyers. Not the people that post here, or at CLO, etc.

My sincere apology to any and all for not making that more explicit.

By: WhoBeen

WhoBeen — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:02:27 +0000

“…shall not be infringed.”

I just can’t see where there should be a problem. Can’t lawyers and judges read anymore? I never did understand this… Do you think it’s me? Do I have some kind of hang-up?

The minute any politician tries to impose some infringement on the rights of citizens they ought to be fired for just cause. Why can’t we do that? Do you think its me? Do I have some kind of hang-up?

Under the current law, what is stopping anyone with a weapon from preventing any politician from breaking that law?
It would be a self-defense issue at least…a citizen’s arrest at most.

Any politician that takes the oath to uphold the Constitution has no right to violate that oath.

By: maggiesnotebook

maggiesnotebook — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:39:10 +0000

The Washington, D.C. case, flying in the face of the Supreme Court is incredible. I read this week that the smartest place in the U.S. – or the smartest brains are all in Washington, D.C. Oklahoma will keep their right to bear arms.

By: TexasFred

TexasFred — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:39:56 +0000

That was in 1993. Where the hell have all you people been..?

Patrick, I am a bit shocked by this response from someone that I have called friend for years... Where have you people been?? You don't have to worry about asking that one any more...

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:37:16 +0000

It is a sin against the constitution that Otis McDonald is not allowed to practice his second amendment right and that he is not allowed to defend himslef.
I am proud to say that my state of New Hamshire is one of the states that has joined this fight. While we are moving to the left on many issues, gun ownership and the second amendment is still one of New Hampshire’s strong points.