JESSE JACKSON on gun control
(My note: I didn't know Jesse could say anything to even resemble words, and the one time he does it is this CRAP!)
Activist judge takes aim at gun law
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/293890,CST-EDT-jesse13.article)
March 13, 2007
BY JESSE JACKSON
Like many cities, the District of Columbia has a crime problem. It is getting worse, not better, as a new wave of drugs drives new gang disputes. Unlike most cities, the District of Columbia has a real and present concern about terrorism. The Pentagon was hit on Sept. 11, and the district remains at the top of any target list.
Sensibly, the district has passed one of the most strict gun-control laws in the country. It bans possession of handguns. The district's police are the leading supporters of this law. They want the ability to arrest anyone carrying a weapon, or stockpiling them in their homes, preferably before the shooting begins. The district doesn't manufacture guns. It doesn't manufacture drugs, either. Both are imported, often by what might be termed terrorist gangs. For the overwhelming majority of district residents, tough gun laws make sense.
But last week, a federal Appeals Court, in a bizarre 2-1 decision, overturned the district's long-standing handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The majority ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that gun owners keep their guns unloaded and disassembled. Federal Judge Laurence Silberman wrote the opinion. He doesn't care that the district's democratically elected government passed the law. He certainly scorns the notion that the vast majority of district residents support strict arms control.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
As Justice Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Republican appointee, wrote in her dissent, the Second Amendment rights relate to "those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." In those days, the citizen militia was central to state's rights. The amendment was a reaction to the attempt of the British king to suppress the state militias and an expression of the Founders' concern that an overbearing federal government might suppress the militias to bolster their own power.
It is states and localities that generally regulate the right to bear arms. In much of the country, where rifles are commonplace and hunting is a tradition, gun laws are pretty lax. In many urban areas, where crime is a problem, citizens demand stricter laws. Both are a pretty good reflection of democracy.
Silberman's ruling, however, tramples democracy -- even as it distorts the Founders' intent. The concern for a "well regulated militia" is a far remove from the judge's ruling which would make sensible gun control impossible in our nation's urban areas.
Not surprisingly, the district's energetic new mayor, Mayor Adrian Fenty, harshly criticized this judicial usurpation, saying that it "flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." The district is likely to appeal for a hearing before the full appeals court -- and if necessary, to the Supreme Court.
The boneheaded decision not only ignores precedent, it also reveals the real threat of a court system packed with right-wing zealots. Silberman is a notorious right-wing operative, deeply compromised by his partisan involvement in the effort to smear Bill Clinton. He is the kind of justice that President Bush denounces regularly -- a judicial activist, prepared to elevate his own political ideology over that of the elected representatives of the people, and eager to engage in judicial lawmaking if it fits his ideological bent.
This new right-wing judicial activism is yoked to the extreme right causes of the National Rifle Association, the anti-choice lobby and the corporate boardrooms. They are prepared to trample the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures to implant their policies from the bench. The U.S. courts are now packed with these ideologues. And the decision last week shows that the civilizing advances of recent decades -- in civil rights, gun control, workers' rights, women's rights -- are now at risk from this marauding horde.
Activist judge takes aim at gun law
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/293890,CST-EDT-jesse13.article)
March 13, 2007
BY JESSE JACKSON
Like many cities, the District of Columbia has a crime problem. It is getting worse, not better, as a new wave of drugs drives new gang disputes. Unlike most cities, the District of Columbia has a real and present concern about terrorism. The Pentagon was hit on Sept. 11, and the district remains at the top of any target list.
Sensibly, the district has passed one of the most strict gun-control laws in the country. It bans possession of handguns. The district's police are the leading supporters of this law. They want the ability to arrest anyone carrying a weapon, or stockpiling them in their homes, preferably before the shooting begins. The district doesn't manufacture guns. It doesn't manufacture drugs, either. Both are imported, often by what might be termed terrorist gangs. For the overwhelming majority of district residents, tough gun laws make sense.
But last week, a federal Appeals Court, in a bizarre 2-1 decision, overturned the district's long-standing handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The majority ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that gun owners keep their guns unloaded and disassembled. Federal Judge Laurence Silberman wrote the opinion. He doesn't care that the district's democratically elected government passed the law. He certainly scorns the notion that the vast majority of district residents support strict arms control.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
As Justice Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Republican appointee, wrote in her dissent, the Second Amendment rights relate to "those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." In those days, the citizen militia was central to state's rights. The amendment was a reaction to the attempt of the British king to suppress the state militias and an expression of the Founders' concern that an overbearing federal government might suppress the militias to bolster their own power.
It is states and localities that generally regulate the right to bear arms. In much of the country, where rifles are commonplace and hunting is a tradition, gun laws are pretty lax. In many urban areas, where crime is a problem, citizens demand stricter laws. Both are a pretty good reflection of democracy.
Silberman's ruling, however, tramples democracy -- even as it distorts the Founders' intent. The concern for a "well regulated militia" is a far remove from the judge's ruling which would make sensible gun control impossible in our nation's urban areas.
Not surprisingly, the district's energetic new mayor, Mayor Adrian Fenty, harshly criticized this judicial usurpation, saying that it "flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." The district is likely to appeal for a hearing before the full appeals court -- and if necessary, to the Supreme Court.
The boneheaded decision not only ignores precedent, it also reveals the real threat of a court system packed with right-wing zealots. Silberman is a notorious right-wing operative, deeply compromised by his partisan involvement in the effort to smear Bill Clinton. He is the kind of justice that President Bush denounces regularly -- a judicial activist, prepared to elevate his own political ideology over that of the elected representatives of the people, and eager to engage in judicial lawmaking if it fits his ideological bent.
This new right-wing judicial activism is yoked to the extreme right causes of the National Rifle Association, the anti-choice lobby and the corporate boardrooms. They are prepared to trample the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures to implant their policies from the bench. The U.S. courts are now packed with these ideologues. And the decision last week shows that the civilizing advances of recent decades -- in civil rights, gun control, workers' rights, women's rights -- are now at risk from this marauding horde.
0
-
If the majority rule goes against constitutional rights, then it's still unconstitutional. Get it right, Jesse! 0 -
Its funny that they scream bloody murder when the "judicial activism" is coming from the other side...
I hope this goes to the Supreme Court....I like our chances0 -
Liberal federal judges have been legislating from the bench for decades.....Now we apparently have some who choose to follow the constitution.....Good for 'em......Piss on Jesse Jackson..... 0 -
A. Jesse Jackson needs mouth control.
B. I doubt he really wrote this. Probably one his paid cronies did.0 -
Terrorists gangs? You bet they are. Name one gang that preys on its
fellow man that isn't a "terrorist gang". Pretty good article by
someone who doesn't have a clue. The District of Columbia has a crime
problem that is getting worse and they have strict gun-control laws.
Then why is their crime problem getting worse? Maybe criminals don't
care about laws and gun-control laws already in place are helping
them to keep lawbiding citizens as easy targets. I think we should
quit worrying about gun control and start focusing on the problem to
gun control - common criminals.0 -
I thought the point of the Judical system was to keep the other two systems in check. A balance of power as the founding fathers wrote. I think Jesse needs to go back to 8th grade social studies class to learn how the government works. 0 -
Jesse couldn't have written that he doesn't have the brains to stay focused that long on one subject. If it doesn't pertain to women or welfare he's lost.
Smitty0 -
It's good to see old Jessie talking out of the other side of his mouth. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Jessie can easily argue either side of "judicial activism" and "democracy".
His first paragraph is pretty much the plaintiffs argument against Washington, DC's gun ban.
I would take issue with Washington, DC "doesn't manufacture drugs, either".
The first ten Amendments apply to individual rights of "THE PEOPLE". That's why it's know as the "Bill of Rights". Anybody who thinks the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the government to arm the government is being intentionally ignorant.
The whole idea behind the Constitution was to protect the INDIVIDUAL and the states from the tyranny of tyrants and the tyranny of DEMOCRACY. You would think Jessie Jackson would know that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
It's good to see old Jessie talking out of the other side of his mouth. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Jessie can easily argue either side of "judicial activism" and "democracy".
His first paragraph is pretty much the plaintiffs argument against Washington, DC's gun ban.
I would take issue with Washington, DC "doesn't manufacture drugs, either".
The first ten Amendments apply to individual rights of "THE PEOPLE". That's why it's know as the "Bill of Rights". Anybody who thinks the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the government to arm the government is being intentionally ignorant.
The whole idea behind the Constitution was to protect the INDIVIDUAL and the states from the tyranny of tyrants and the tyranny of DEMOCRACY. You would think Jessie Jackson would know that.
Good Summary! Puts it in perspective! It is fun to watch them go into emotional meltdown once in a while! They mask the truth with shrill name calling and twisted logic. But it plays well to the IQ level of many of the folks that they represent.[:0][:0]0 -
Maybe he wants the gun laws in order to allow others of his pursuasion to continue pillaging, with out danger of injury from their victims.
D.0 -
quote:Terrorists gangs?
The most powerfull being the United States Congress.0 -
...I wonder what Jesse Jacks-Hums definition of a "stockpile" is?
The Rev is a camera HO and makes his living by duping blacks and keeping them "on the plantation"; he's pathetic in many ways.
If you hunt several types of game, plink, shoot paper...it's real common to own 8-10 guns (stockpile?)...a gun-nut should own a LOT more than that!
Not that I would know...[;)]
0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
(My note: I didn't know Jesse could say anything to even resemble words, and the one time he does it is this CRAP!)
Activist judge takes aim at gun law
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/293890,CST-EDT-jesse13.article)
March 13, 2007
BY JESSE JACKSON
Like many cities, the District of Columbia has a crime problem. It is getting worse, not better, as a new wave of drugs drives new gang disputes. Unlike most cities, the District of Columbia has a real and present concern about terrorism. The Pentagon was hit on Sept. 11, and the district remains at the top of any target list.
Sensibly, the district has passed one of the most strict gun-control laws in the country. It bans possession of handguns. The district's police are the leading supporters of this law. They want the ability to arrest anyone carrying a weapon, or stockpiling them in their homes, preferably before the shooting begins. The district doesn't manufacture guns. It doesn't manufacture drugs, either. Both are imported, often by what might be termed terrorist gangs. For the overwhelming majority of district residents, tough gun laws make sense.
But last week, a federal Appeals Court, in a bizarre 2-1 decision, overturned the district's long-standing handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The majority ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that gun owners keep their guns unloaded and disassembled. Federal Judge Laurence Silberman wrote the opinion. He doesn't care that the district's democratically elected government passed the law. He certainly scorns the notion that the vast majority of district residents support strict arms control.
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
As Justice Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Republican appointee, wrote in her dissent, the Second Amendment rights relate to "those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." In those days, the citizen militia was central to state's rights. The amendment was a reaction to the attempt of the British king to suppress the state militias and an expression of the Founders' concern that an overbearing federal government might suppress the militias to bolster their own power.
It is states and localities that generally regulate the right to bear arms. In much of the country, where rifles are commonplace and hunting is a tradition, gun laws are pretty lax. In many urban areas, where crime is a problem, citizens demand stricter laws. Both are a pretty good reflection of democracy.
Silberman's ruling, however, tramples democracy -- even as it distorts the Founders' intent. The concern for a "well regulated militia" is a far remove from the judge's ruling which would make sensible gun control impossible in our nation's urban areas.
Not surprisingly, the district's energetic new mayor, Mayor Adrian Fenty, harshly criticized this judicial usurpation, saying that it "flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." The district is likely to appeal for a hearing before the full appeals court -- and if necessary, to the Supreme Court.
The boneheaded decision not only ignores precedent, it also reveals the real threat of a court system packed with right-wing zealots. Silberman is a notorious right-wing operative, deeply compromised by his partisan involvement in the effort to smear Bill Clinton. He is the kind of justice that President Bush denounces regularly -- a judicial activist, prepared to elevate his own political ideology over that of the elected representatives of the people, and eager to engage in judicial lawmaking if it fits his ideological bent.
This new right-wing judicial activism is yoked to the extreme right causes of the National Rifle Association, the anti-choice lobby and the corporate boardrooms. They are prepared to trample the laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures to implant their policies from the bench. The U.S. courts are now packed with these ideologues. And the decision last week shows that the civilizing advances of recent decades -- in civil rights, gun control, workers' rights, women's rights -- are now at risk from this marauding horde.
This Anti-American would make a patriotic American citizen want to take Kruschev to the senior prom. Kruschev was such a hated communist who was so ugly that his own mother would have to dread looking at him, even Bill Cosby would be stumped to described him in a one liner. We all know just how much Kruschev hated Americans and their way of life. So what possible picture could the most demonic mind paint of JJ and the Reverends to help decent citizens see them for the kind of people they truly are, especially when it comes to helping preserve everything Americans have ever fought and died for, huh?0 -
He's totally right (or is that left?) and I think he and his followers should get, "constipated for their losses", right away! 0 -
is it true that the jackson originally wrote that piece in ebonics and it was then translated into english for publication ? 0 -
I always get Jesse and the Reverend Al Sharpton mixed up. [xx(] 0 -
As an American citizen, Jesse Jackson is entitled to excercise his first amendment right to express his opinion, and I will defend his right to that opinion no matter how uninformed it is.
There is nothing else in the world Jesse Jackson could express an opinion on that any one on this board would care a whit about. Frankly his opinion on guns does not interest me either.0 -
Pretty literate so you can bet Jessuh Jackson didn't write it.
Let's try the change for a while and see how it works out.
I want to see numbers and statistics not hype.0 -
Hey Newt
You planning on running for president? Go boy.[:D]0 -
Is he the same nationality as Al Sharpton...[:o)]?
What it be....
YO! Was he born in New Orleans i:e "the chocolate city " ?0 -
Jesse, a waste of skin. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Maybe he wants the gun laws in order to allow others of his pursuasion to continue pillaging, with out danger of injury from their victims.
D.
Bingo. Everyone but whitey's civil rights are important, and it's damned inconvenient when he can fight back.0 -
no lets blame ANYONE other than black culture. 0 -
"It is states and localities that generally regulate the right to bear arms. In much of the country, where rifles are commonplace and hunting is a tradition, gun laws are pretty lax. In many urban areas, where crime is a problem, citizens demand stricter laws. Both are a pretty good reflection of democracy."
This man has been abusing his freedom of speech for too long. The Freedom of Speech was created in a time of Oppression by the King of England. The King of England does not rule over us anymore. The Oppressor is gone and people abusing their use of speech, especially in large urban areas such as Chicago or Warshington D.C.
The First Amendment is old and not necessary anymore.0 -
Under Jesse's logic, America should never have ended slavery. The citizens in the south did not want it. They were the majority. They held elections. They chose not to respect the Negro as a citizen. It was there choice and Washington should has respected it. Besides, it kept crime down.
By his logic, it's true!!!!!!0 -
Who cares????????????? I definitely do not care what Jessie Jackson thinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0 -
Who's Jessie Jackson? Oh yea, he's the long lost brother of Michael, right?[;)] 0 -
cmd66 --- Right!!!! [:D][:D] 0 -
Hey Jesse, Slaves don't own guns. Only rich white guys can have them.[;)]Uncle Tom is Dead, Long live Uncle Jesse 0 -
somebody needs to find the ignorant sister that wrote the dissenting opinion and pull her rnc membership..The dems won the last election because of spineless republicans like her that do not represent the views of true republicans 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
35 comments