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
-
Call me racist if you must, but it is obvious that Jesse Jackson't people here in the KC area, (and I assume nationwide from the news) have no need of legal gun rights because a large number of them not only freely obtain, carry but USE illegal guns.
So only dopes like me who want to remain legal need gun rights.0 -
Jesse says...http://wilstar.com/midi/whitewomen.wav
Smitty [:D]0 -
It would be easy to call Jessy Jackson an idiot, but he isn't. In fact, he is very smart. That doesn't change the fact that he is a liar.
Frankly, no matter what laws are passed, Jessy's body guards will still be packing some heat. Interesting, if he is as popular as he claims, why?
The problem is, and 90% of people out there choose to ignore is that:
1) People who have FOID cards and buy guns through FFL are highly unlikely to go and start robbing banks. (Though I have red about some criminals in USA, who probably would be dumb enough to do it)
2) Only half of the guns now in the hands of population is obtained legally. Frankly, I myself a while back, found a Beretta Pistol and brought it into a local police DPT. Just as easily I could have kept it.
3) Most incidents or school shootings come from only one thing:
Kids being treated like hell in school by their peers.
Why is this happening? Because the teachers are not allowed to discipline kids and teens and school. Furthermore, parents fail in their duties to teach kids something called RESPONCIBILITY.
4) I doubt that Jessy Jackson wants us all disarmed so the "broddahs from da ghetto" can come and rob us. He, being a rather rasist himself (check out his old speaches), he choose to ignore the problem of illegal gun ownership among black population of US inner cities. Same way that he chooses to ignore that vast majority of "black violence" is "black on black".
Unfortunately, "we, the sheeple of the USA" are in large part easily swayed and persuaded, easily manipulated and lacking the ability to questions things we see on TV and decide for ourselves. Thats' why Jessy Jackson is popular and has influence0 -
Yes, I agree. Jesse talks tough for a many that is surrounded by men permitted to carry concealed weapons. Hypocrite.
I find it interesting that Jesse calls this "judicial activism". I would call it "constitutional constructionism". Those that believe the Constitution of United States says what it says, is what it is, and does not change are known as Constructionists. Those, like Jesse that believe the Constitution can be manipulated and changed by reinterpretation ARE judicial activists.
Basically, people like Jess think the Constitution is butt wiping paper!0 -
Dmitry - You are on the button again!
D.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
35 comments