http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101 US court overturns DC handgun ban DC residents have been barred from keeping handguns for 32 years A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The US capital, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US, had challenged a lower court ruling striking down the ban. It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US. Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years. US court overturns DC handgun ban DC residents have been barred from keeping handguns for 32 years A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The US capital, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the US, had challenged a lower court ruling striking down the ban. It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US. Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years. en-us <p>This one is elemental to all of us law abiding responsible gun owners!</p> <p>If you care at all about your guns, you need to pay attention to this one.</p> <p>Ruling&nbsp;and subsequent&nbsp;fallout from opinions will be legion.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263852 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263852 <p>This one is elemental to all of us law abiding responsible gun owners!</p> <p>If you care at all about your guns, you need to pay attention to this one.</p> <p>Ruling&nbsp;and subsequent&nbsp;fallout from opinions will be legion.</p> <p></p> <hr style="color: #d1d1e1; background-color: #d1d1e1" size="1" /> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> <div id="post_message_1027551"><a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HO0I00.html" target="_blank"><font color="#22229c">http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HO0I00.html</font></a><br /> <br /> It was a very narrow decision. The next president's appointments to the bench, will be vital to this interest.<br /> <br /> Just another reason why I can't vote obamination.</div> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263858 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263858 <p></p> <hr style="color: #d1d1e1; background-color: #d1d1e1" size="1" /> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --> <div id="post_message_1027551"><a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HO0I00.html" target="_blank"><font color="#22229c">http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080626/D91HO0I00.html</font></a><br /> <br /> It was a very narrow decision. The next president's appointments to the bench, will be vital to this interest.<br /> <br /> Just another reason why I can't vote obamination.</div> <p>I am glad the Supreme Court ruled that citizens in D.C. can carry guns. It will be curious how the fallout will develop. The anti gun nuts are little different than the Global Warmer crowd&nbsp;since nothing ever ends with them.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263859 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263859 <p>I am glad the Supreme Court ruled that citizens in D.C. can carry guns. It will be curious how the fallout will develop. The anti gun nuts are little different than the Global Warmer crowd&nbsp;since nothing ever ends with them.</p> <p>And now that the Mexican&nbsp;Military is sending death&nbsp;squads to the United States, Americans will need all the firepower they can stow away. &nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263866 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263866 <p>And now that the Mexican&nbsp;Military is sending death&nbsp;squads to the United States, Americans will need all the firepower they can stow away. &nbsp;</p> <p>Yes, Lix -- Unfortunately there will come a time when it will be every man (or woman) for himself (herself).</p> <p>An unarmed, flaccid, unable to respond in any effective way populace is just what the Democrat-Lib-Socialists want.</p> <p>And they will use all the crime committed by the scofflaws to justify their oppression of the responsible citizens (that own guns).</p> <p>Just wait and see.............</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263877 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263877 <p>Yes, Lix -- Unfortunately there will come a time when it will be every man (or woman) for himself (herself).</p> <p>An unarmed, flaccid, unable to respond in any effective way populace is just what the Democrat-Lib-Socialists want.</p> <p>And they will use all the crime committed by the scofflaws to justify their oppression of the responsible citizens (that own guns).</p> <p>Just wait and see.............</p> <p>Here's the first off the rails, insane quotes from those defenders of freedom over at DU:</p> <p><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=102x3369233#3369280">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=102x3369233#3369280</a></p> <p><img class="inlineimg" title="ROTFLMAO" alt="" border="0" src="http://www.nopc.info/forum/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif" /><!-- / message --><!-- sig --></p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263894 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263894 <p>Here's the first off the rails, insane quotes from those defenders of freedom over at DU:</p> <p><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=102x3369233#3369280">http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=102x3369233#3369280</a></p> <p><img class="inlineimg" title="ROTFLMAO" alt="" border="0" src="http://www.nopc.info/forum/images/smilies/rotflmao.gif" /><!-- / message --><!-- sig --></p> <p>The funny thing is that the DU bloggers use a <u>right-wing</u> argument about local governance to steal the 2nd Amendment.</p> <p>What outrages me more, however, is that the&nbsp;individual ruling&nbsp;of each justice, on&nbsp;any case involving rights,&nbsp;can be predicted with near perfect accuracy, NOT by looking at the Constitution, but by looking at the political party of the president who appointed them.</p> <p>There has to be a better way to appoint Supreme Court judges, one that results in decisions based on the Constitution rather than&nbsp;on the appointing president's party.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263939 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263939 <p>The funny thing is that the DU bloggers use a <u>right-wing</u> argument about local governance to steal the 2nd Amendment.</p> <p>What outrages me more, however, is that the&nbsp;individual ruling&nbsp;of each justice, on&nbsp;any case involving rights,&nbsp;can be predicted with near perfect accuracy, NOT by looking at the Constitution, but by looking at the political party of the president who appointed them.</p> <p>There has to be a better way to appoint Supreme Court judges, one that results in decisions based on the Constitution rather than&nbsp;on the appointing president's party.</p> <p>You're right Chico, we can be grateful for this decision but those wanting to disarm us are going to keep on trying. But as usual, I wonder why all those in favor of the right to keep and bear arms do not belong to the NRA? That's the only organization confronting the enemies of gun ownership.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263940 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263940 <p>You're right Chico, we can be grateful for this decision but those wanting to disarm us are going to keep on trying. But as usual, I wonder why all those in favor of the right to keep and bear arms do not belong to the NRA? That's the only organization confronting the enemies of gun ownership.</p> <p>Gun Owners of America is another pro-gun organization.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263944 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263944 <p>Gun Owners of America is another pro-gun organization.</p> <p>Funny, I thought 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by <i>Republicans</i>. The vote here was 5-4.</p> <p>Kinda blows <i>that</i> theory.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263949 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263949 <p>Funny, I thought 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by <i>Republicans</i>. The vote here was 5-4.</p> <p>Kinda blows <i>that</i> theory.</p> <p>I wonder why the gun owners aren't card-carrying members of the ACLU as well, since they fight for the *ENTIRE* bill of rights including the second.&nbsp; There's a reason it wasn't first, you know...</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263952 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263952 <p>I wonder why the gun owners aren't card-carrying members of the ACLU as well, since they fight for the *ENTIRE* bill of rights including the second.&nbsp; There's a reason it wasn't first, you know...</p> <p>so you could screed RF?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263960 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263960 <p>so you could screed RF?</p> <p>Sam, it is important to belong to the NRA and there are some other orgs on a more local level that are just as important. The california ones like the CA RFLE &amp; PISTOL OWNERS ASSN, etc. &nbsp;are important as well.</p> <p>We have issues of a dumb species of buzzard trying to make himself extinct by eating lead bullets out of gutpiles (when he isn't drinking anti-freeze, etc.) thus banning lead in D-8 and D-9, etc.....</p> <p>It will be a constant battle, but for now the decision is a good one. Just a lot closer than I would have thought. That scares me with an Obamantion in 09.................</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263965 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263965 <p>Sam, it is important to belong to the NRA and there are some other orgs on a more local level that are just as important. The california ones like the CA RFLE &amp; PISTOL OWNERS ASSN, etc. &nbsp;are important as well.</p> <p>We have issues of a dumb species of buzzard trying to make himself extinct by eating lead bullets out of gutpiles (when he isn't drinking anti-freeze, etc.) thus banning lead in D-8 and D-9, etc.....</p> <p>It will be a constant battle, but for now the decision is a good one. Just a lot closer than I would have thought. That scares me with an Obamantion in 09.................</p> <p>The stupid NRA calls my husband all the time asking if he wants a lifetime membership for $500.&nbsp; He made the mistake once of getting a subscription to their magazine.&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh! he's suffered for it , because I haven't shut up since then.</p> <p>I usually answer the phone and talk to the same woman every time they call.&nbsp; I've told her at least a dozen times&nbsp; that we don't want a membership and to take us off her call list.</p> <p>I'm tempted to ask her why we would want a lifetime membership to the NRA when we just made a sizable donation to Hillary Clinton's presidential&nbsp;campaign. Maybe that would shut her up.</p> <p>BTW&nbsp; I'm in favor of gun ownership.&nbsp;After a waiting period, of course.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It's one of those issues I've changed my mind about in the last 40 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If I outlive my husband, &nbsp;I'll want an arsenal in my house to protect&nbsp;myself &nbsp;from the&nbsp;predators out there.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263989 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263989 <p>The stupid NRA calls my husband all the time asking if he wants a lifetime membership for $500.&nbsp; He made the mistake once of getting a subscription to their magazine.&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh! he's suffered for it , because I haven't shut up since then.</p> <p>I usually answer the phone and talk to the same woman every time they call.&nbsp; I've told her at least a dozen times&nbsp; that we don't want a membership and to take us off her call list.</p> <p>I'm tempted to ask her why we would want a lifetime membership to the NRA when we just made a sizable donation to Hillary Clinton's presidential&nbsp;campaign. Maybe that would shut her up.</p> <p>BTW&nbsp; I'm in favor of gun ownership.&nbsp;After a waiting period, of course.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;It's one of those issues I've changed my mind about in the last 40 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If I outlive my husband, &nbsp;I'll want an arsenal in my house to protect&nbsp;myself &nbsp;from the&nbsp;predators out there.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The NRA is not stupid.</p> <p>You last statement about being in favor of gun ownership and wanting an arsenal when Hubby passes tells me you should be a supporter.</p> <p>Avidly so..................</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263994 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263994 <p>The NRA is not stupid.</p> <p>You last statement about being in favor of gun ownership and wanting an arsenal when Hubby passes tells me you should be a supporter.</p> <p>Avidly so..................</p> <p>Chco</p> <p>I'm not a joiner.&nbsp;&nbsp; And the NRA IS stupid.&nbsp; ie All the money they waste calling avid liberals.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263996 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263996 <p>Chco</p> <p>I'm not a joiner.&nbsp;&nbsp; And the NRA IS stupid.&nbsp; ie All the money they waste calling avid liberals.</p> <p>I am a multi gun owner who slept with a 40cal on my nightstand last night, but I am still leary of the NRA. If there is an Obamination I fear all NRA members will be rounded up. I dont like being on any list.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263999 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_263999 <p>I am a multi gun owner who slept with a 40cal on my nightstand last night, but I am still leary of the NRA. If there is an Obamination I fear all NRA members will be rounded up. I dont like being on any list.</p> <p>calling avid liberals?</p> <p>Not exactly sure what that means but I know many Libs that belong to the NRA.</p> <p>They recognize it is a lobby (just like thousands of others) that works to help keep their 2nd Amendment Rights in tact. It all depends on whose Ox is gored, just like anything else.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264003 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264003 <p>calling avid liberals?</p> <p>Not exactly sure what that means but I know many Libs that belong to the NRA.</p> <p>They recognize it is a lobby (just like thousands of others) that works to help keep their 2nd Amendment Rights in tact. It all depends on whose Ox is gored, just like anything else.</p> <p>I guess it's stating the obvious that those of us who own guns should support the NRA (as well as any local gun organizations) &nbsp;since they lobby for our right to own firearms.</p> <p>As Audrey, and the lady who was single stated, I intend to be able to protect myself against anyone who would feel they had a right to my possessions or an intent to harm me.&nbsp;&nbsp; If people feel safe without firearms, good for them, I don't.</p> <p>I have two dogs who go absolutely bonkers when anyone comes around so I consider that the bad guys first warning.&nbsp; Ignore that and I have a&nbsp;much&nbsp;more powerful&nbsp;welcome for you.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264011 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264011 <p>I guess it's stating the obvious that those of us who own guns should support the NRA (as well as any local gun organizations) &nbsp;since they lobby for our right to own firearms.</p> <p>As Audrey, and the lady who was single stated, I intend to be able to protect myself against anyone who would feel they had a right to my possessions or an intent to harm me.&nbsp;&nbsp; If people feel safe without firearms, good for them, I don't.</p> <p>I have two dogs who go absolutely bonkers when anyone comes around so I consider that the bad guys first warning.&nbsp; Ignore that and I have a&nbsp;much&nbsp;more powerful&nbsp;welcome for you.</p> <p>Heh.&nbsp; I just had a great example.&nbsp; A business truck of some sort pulled in to a driveway across the street.&nbsp; My dog is barking, the next door neighbors dog is barking and Zack is running around trying to get my attention.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; First alert.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264014 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264014 <p>Heh.&nbsp; I just had a great example.&nbsp; A business truck of some sort pulled in to a driveway across the street.&nbsp; My dog is barking, the next door neighbors dog is barking and Zack is running around trying to get my attention.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; First alert.</p> <p><i>so you could screed RF?&nbsp;</i></p> <p>Haven't screeded since our last concrete pour.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264015 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264015 <p><i>so you could screed RF?&nbsp;</i></p> <p>Haven't screeded since our last concrete pour.</p> <p>It's not handguns&nbsp;that's &nbsp;being threatened by &quot;gun laws&quot; it the BIG FIREPOWER.&nbsp; The kind that criminals and terrorists own.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264016 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264016 <p>It's not handguns&nbsp;that's &nbsp;being threatened by &quot;gun laws&quot; it the BIG FIREPOWER.&nbsp; The kind that criminals and terrorists own.</p> <p>And SCOTUS apparently left that question open, for now.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264017 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264017 <p>And SCOTUS apparently left that question open, for now.</p> <p>Don't be fooled by Chico's talk of 2nd Amendment; the NRA; the Supreme Court; etc. He just wants to continue blowing away cute, furry, harmless, defenseless squirrels. Squirrel lovers unite!</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264252 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264252 <p>Don't be fooled by Chico's talk of 2nd Amendment; the NRA; the Supreme Court; etc. He just wants to continue blowing away cute, furry, harmless, defenseless squirrels. Squirrel lovers unite!</p> <p>catpaw, you obviously haven't been around farming much.&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264260 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264260 <p>catpaw, you obviously haven't been around farming much.&nbsp;</p> <p>When the lead ban covers 22's in CA Cat, then the squirrel huntin days will be done...................</p> <p> </p> <p>(and its coming)</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264308 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264308 <p>When the lead ban covers 22's in CA Cat, then the squirrel huntin days will be done...................</p> <p> </p> <p>(and its coming)</p> <p>Already no lead in D-8, D-9, D-10 for deer.</p> <p>If you don't reload, you can get Barnes or don't hunt. Especially if you have&nbsp;a 45-70, etc. (they don't make none lead factory loads)</p> <p>CA will make hunting a very rich man's sport. Then they will go after target shooters.</p> <p>Pretty soon -- you guessed it -- no guns</p> <p>Only cops and criminals...................</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264311 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264311 <p>Already no lead in D-8, D-9, D-10 for deer.</p> <p>If you don't reload, you can get Barnes or don't hunt. Especially if you have&nbsp;a 45-70, etc. (they don't make none lead factory loads)</p> <p>CA will make hunting a very rich man's sport. Then they will go after target shooters.</p> <p>Pretty soon -- you guessed it -- no guns</p> <p>Only cops and criminals...................</p> <p>Chico, that is why I have stocked up on ammo for my AR-15 and my Ruger Mini-14 off and on over the past 10+ years. But I just couldn't bring myself to buy&nbsp;much&nbsp;ammo for that Calico M960 I&nbsp;bought.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264321 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264321 <p>Chico, that is why I have stocked up on ammo for my AR-15 and my Ruger Mini-14 off and on over the past 10+ years. But I just couldn't bring myself to buy&nbsp;much&nbsp;ammo for that Calico M960 I&nbsp;bought.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>OB - &nbsp;With the ever expanding ban on lead, the stamping of primers requirement (firing pin law), the CA&nbsp; &quot;Drop Test&quot;, the proposed restrictions on purchasing more than 50 cartridges (of any kind) per month, and myriad other proposed restrictions on not only guns but ammo and components for reloading......</p> <p>In CA hunting, plinking, target -- just shooting -- will be a rich man's only sport.</p> <p>Already numerous guns are not available in CA due to the cost for manufacturers to produce them for legal sale here........ (Drop Test, etc.) so guns will become prohibitively expensive in CA. They will start on ammo next.</p> <p>There are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. Someday if the Libs have their way, no one will own guns in CA except -- you got it -- cops and criminals and a few really rich people. So it won't really matter what SCOTUS rules.</p> <p>And OB, I hope your FMJ&nbsp; AR rounds don't have a lead core or you will be breaking the law every time you shoot one. They better be all copper.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264356 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264356 <p>OB - &nbsp;With the ever expanding ban on lead, the stamping of primers requirement (firing pin law), the CA&nbsp; &quot;Drop Test&quot;, the proposed restrictions on purchasing more than 50 cartridges (of any kind) per month, and myriad other proposed restrictions on not only guns but ammo and components for reloading......</p> <p>In CA hunting, plinking, target -- just shooting -- will be a rich man's only sport.</p> <p>Already numerous guns are not available in CA due to the cost for manufacturers to produce them for legal sale here........ (Drop Test, etc.) so guns will become prohibitively expensive in CA. They will start on ammo next.</p> <p>There are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. Someday if the Libs have their way, no one will own guns in CA except -- you got it -- cops and criminals and a few really rich people. So it won't really matter what SCOTUS rules.</p> <p>And OB, I hope your FMJ&nbsp; AR rounds don't have a lead core or you will be breaking the law every time you shoot one. They better be all copper.</p> <p>I know Chico. I bought the guns back in the 90's when the assault rifle laws were being passed. With the current laws, I can't even sell them in this state anymore, without a lot of restrictions. I guess my son will get them when I die.</p> <p>And if I ever have a need to fire any of my guns to protect my home or family, the last thing I will be worried about is what the bullets are made of.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264390 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264390 <p>I know Chico. I bought the guns back in the 90's when the assault rifle laws were being passed. With the current laws, I can't even sell them in this state anymore, without a lot of restrictions. I guess my son will get them when I die.</p> <p>And if I ever have a need to fire any of my guns to protect my home or family, the last thing I will be worried about is what the bullets are made of.</p> I shoot quite a bit and not for protection from 2 legged critters. .......... So our concerns may be different............. But I just think there is an agenda going down and I don't like it.......... http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264416 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264416 I shoot quite a bit and not for protection from 2 legged critters. .......... So our concerns may be different............. But I just think there is an agenda going down and I don't like it.......... <p>I will agree with that 100%. If I lived up where you did, and not in this gang infested town, our priorities just might be different. And don't tell anyone, but I have a lot of ground squirrels&nbsp; in my back yard, so I get a lot of critter practice too. :)</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264423 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264423 <p>I will agree with that 100%. If I lived up where you did, and not in this gang infested town, our priorities just might be different. And don't tell anyone, but I have a lot of ground squirrels&nbsp; in my back yard, so I get a lot of critter practice too. :)</p> <p>Alright <b>Chico</b>, how is <u>bullet</u> regulation un-Constitutional?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264433 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264433 <p>Alright <b>Chico</b>, how is <u>bullet</u> regulation un-Constitutional?</p> <p>Lib&nbsp; Matt&nbsp;&nbsp; that could be our next fight to win</p> <p>When they demand&nbsp; we only use Plastic or water Bullets</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264445 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264445 <p>Lib&nbsp; Matt&nbsp;&nbsp; that could be our next fight to win</p> <p>When they demand&nbsp; we only use Plastic or water Bullets</p> <p>I know a friend that has a friend and is related to another friend that knows this friend that kills Condors</p> <p>The Hell with Anti Freeze&nbsp; drink'in lead eating&nbsp; street sitting Condors&nbsp;&nbsp; and Liberals</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Ron</p> <p>ps&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't know any names</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264446 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264446 <p>I know a friend that has a friend and is related to another friend that knows this friend that kills Condors</p> <p>The Hell with Anti Freeze&nbsp; drink'in lead eating&nbsp; street sitting Condors&nbsp;&nbsp; and Liberals</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Ron</p> <p>ps&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't know any names</p> OK Mattloch - where did I say anything about bullet registration or it being unconstitutional?....................... You are putting words in my mouth, and that is unsanitary -- even for you............. http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264451 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264451 OK Mattloch - where did I say anything about bullet registration or it being unconstitutional?....................... You are putting words in my mouth, and that is unsanitary -- even for you............. <p>I'm <u>not</u> putting words in your mouth <b>Chico</b>. I'm just wondering if you believe that the Second Amendment extends to &quot;bullet freedoms&quot;, or not. Simple question. <u>Yes</u> or <u>no</u>. I'm actually curious to your take. Can't a guy ask a simple question around here anymore without being jumped on?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264486 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264486 <p>I'm <u>not</u> putting words in your mouth <b>Chico</b>. I'm just wondering if you believe that the Second Amendment extends to &quot;bullet freedoms&quot;, or not. Simple question. <u>Yes</u> or <u>no</u>. I'm actually curious to your take. Can't a guy ask a simple question around here anymore without being jumped on?</p> Bullets? Or cartridges? Big diff! http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264528 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264528 Bullets? Or cartridges? Big diff! <p>You see Mattloch -- Past being prologue, I think I know where you are heading in your prosaic, transparent would be guru to the other Libs fashion. However, were you to register bullets only, the brass (ejector marks, powder residues, etc.) would be out of the ID equation,&nbsp;as would &nbsp;the powder (GSR can ID the type of powder utilized if fired close enough to surfaces), as well as the primer (stamped by your other supercilious law on firing pin stamping). The brass could even tell you things about the resizing die, etc. were it a reloaded round.</p> <p>So, prior to setting up your all too obvious Lib Straw man Argument, you should first be specific. You are not speaking with one of your groupies now................. there are many of us on here whose actual hands on experience could fill a stadium while your would be akin to the veritable BB in a Boxcar.............</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>BTW, did you get that street sign name change effected for me yet?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264544 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264544 <p>You see Mattloch -- Past being prologue, I think I know where you are heading in your prosaic, transparent would be guru to the other Libs fashion. However, were you to register bullets only, the brass (ejector marks, powder residues, etc.) would be out of the ID equation,&nbsp;as would &nbsp;the powder (GSR can ID the type of powder utilized if fired close enough to surfaces), as well as the primer (stamped by your other supercilious law on firing pin stamping). The brass could even tell you things about the resizing die, etc. were it a reloaded round.</p> <p>So, prior to setting up your all too obvious Lib Straw man Argument, you should first be specific. You are not speaking with one of your groupies now................. there are many of us on here whose actual hands on experience could fill a stadium while your would be akin to the veritable BB in a Boxcar.............</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>BTW, did you get that street sign name change effected for me yet?</p> <p>So Mattloch -- Question --</p> <p><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-bicycle.jpg" /></p> <p>Do you consider THIS unconstitutional?&nbsp;</p> <p>(relevancy check)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264547 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264547 <p>So Mattloch -- Question --</p> <p><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-bicycle.jpg" /></p> <p>Do you consider THIS unconstitutional?&nbsp;</p> <p>(relevancy check)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Apparently people being able to own <i>some </i>guns but not <i>others </i>is un-Constitutional (according to&nbsp;SCOTUS)&nbsp;<b>Chico</b>. I'm wondering if you also believe that any regulations on bullets (commercial sales, reloads, whatever) is also un-Constitutional, or if you (along with SCOTUS) believe that <u>any</u> regulation is automatically un-Constitutional. Bullets v cartridges is like handguns v rifles.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><br /> Seeing as how we have limits on free speech (fire in a theater, threatening speech, etc.), I find it hard to believe that the <i>individual </i>&quot;right&quot; to own guns is uniquely (and completely) free from regulation. But the question about ammunition is actually not explicit (as it is for possessing &quot;firearms&quot;) within the Constitution.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264920 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264920 <p>Apparently people being able to own <i>some </i>guns but not <i>others </i>is un-Constitutional (according to&nbsp;SCOTUS)&nbsp;<b>Chico</b>. I'm wondering if you also believe that any regulations on bullets (commercial sales, reloads, whatever) is also un-Constitutional, or if you (along with SCOTUS) believe that <u>any</u> regulation is automatically un-Constitutional. Bullets v cartridges is like handguns v rifles.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><br /> Seeing as how we have limits on free speech (fire in a theater, threatening speech, etc.), I find it hard to believe that the <i>individual </i>&quot;right&quot; to own guns is uniquely (and completely) free from regulation. But the question about ammunition is actually not explicit (as it is for possessing &quot;firearms&quot;) within the Constitution.</p> <p>Mattloch - Would not it naturally follow that the ammunition specific to the firearm (it is ostensibly good for no other purpose)&nbsp;fall under the same general rubric (as far as constitutionality to own), as the&nbsp;firearm for which it is designed?</p> <p>It is partially for this reason I wish you would&nbsp;quit utilizing the sophomoric term&nbsp; &quot;bullets&quot;</p> <p>The bullet is just a component of the cartridge (which is designed for a specific class of firearms. The bullet (say 30 cal) can be utilized in a myriad of 30 cal weapons, with muzzle velocities and other characteristics that are vastly different. A 30 cal bullet can be utilized in loadings for some old cowboy single shot handguns with MV's of around 600 fps all the way up to 7.62 mini-guns with rates of fire around 4,000 rounds per minute and MV's of around 3,000 fps.</p> <p>The right to own a firearm should necessarily attach to the ammunition it is designed to fire. If not the firearm is useless and the right to own said firearm is rendered moot.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264939 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264939 <p>Mattloch - Would not it naturally follow that the ammunition specific to the firearm (it is ostensibly good for no other purpose)&nbsp;fall under the same general rubric (as far as constitutionality to own), as the&nbsp;firearm for which it is designed?</p> <p>It is partially for this reason I wish you would&nbsp;quit utilizing the sophomoric term&nbsp; &quot;bullets&quot;</p> <p>The bullet is just a component of the cartridge (which is designed for a specific class of firearms. The bullet (say 30 cal) can be utilized in a myriad of 30 cal weapons, with muzzle velocities and other characteristics that are vastly different. A 30 cal bullet can be utilized in loadings for some old cowboy single shot handguns with MV's of around 600 fps all the way up to 7.62 mini-guns with rates of fire around 4,000 rounds per minute and MV's of around 3,000 fps.</p> <p>The right to own a firearm should necessarily attach to the ammunition it is designed to fire. If not the firearm is useless and the right to own said firearm is rendered moot.</p> <p>Liberals will skin a cat in more ways than one.</p> <p>If they will have a hard time attacking the emotionally charged issue of owning a gun, they will then just go for the concomitant ammunition.</p> <p>Its just another Lib tactic, much like the CA &quot;Drop Test&quot;, Firing Pin Stamping, magazine limitations, Assault Weapons Ban, etc.</p> <p>A multi-faceted approach by the Libs to make gun ownership so expensive and onerous-difficult, that potential gun owners will finally just give up.</p> <p>It is all fairly transparent.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264945 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264945 <p>Liberals will skin a cat in more ways than one.</p> <p>If they will have a hard time attacking the emotionally charged issue of owning a gun, they will then just go for the concomitant ammunition.</p> <p>Its just another Lib tactic, much like the CA &quot;Drop Test&quot;, Firing Pin Stamping, magazine limitations, Assault Weapons Ban, etc.</p> <p>A multi-faceted approach by the Libs to make gun ownership so expensive and onerous-difficult, that potential gun owners will finally just give up.</p> <p>It is all fairly transparent.</p> <p>Ah <b>Chico</b>, but the First Amendment's protection of free speech was recently limited by this Administration by creating &quot;free speech zones&quot;, keeping speakers away from their intended audience. If you have the right of free speech, but are limited to speak freely only in your own home, it seems to me you hardly have the &quot;right&quot; to free speech at all.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><br /> I use the &quot;sophomoric&quot; term &quot;bullets&quot; in a generic sense. If you want to get anal on it, pucker up. I'm trying to engage you in dialog about the practical limits that may be placed on firearms after yesterday's ruling. If you want to puff out your chest and say &quot;I know more than you do&quot; about firearms, go ahead. I guess it was <i>my </i>mistake in trying to talk to you like an adult, instead of the anal-retentive puerile child that you are making yourself out to be.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264949 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264949 <p>Ah <b>Chico</b>, but the First Amendment's protection of free speech was recently limited by this Administration by creating &quot;free speech zones&quot;, keeping speakers away from their intended audience. If you have the right of free speech, but are limited to speak freely only in your own home, it seems to me you hardly have the &quot;right&quot; to free speech at all.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><br /> I use the &quot;sophomoric&quot; term &quot;bullets&quot; in a generic sense. If you want to get anal on it, pucker up. I'm trying to engage you in dialog about the practical limits that may be placed on firearms after yesterday's ruling. If you want to puff out your chest and say &quot;I know more than you do&quot; about firearms, go ahead. I guess it was <i>my </i>mistake in trying to talk to you like an adult, instead of the anal-retentive puerile child that you are making yourself out to be.</p> <p>Words mean things Mattloch.</p> <p>You choose to be specific and require same only when it suits you.</p> <p>Actually speaking of puerile and anal-retentive......... you could be an SNL character (pipe and all)</p> <p>Obviously if you ban the thing that makes a gun a gun (boollets in the vernacular), then you have effectively banned the gun itself.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264954 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_264954 <p>Words mean things Mattloch.</p> <p>You choose to be specific and require same only when it suits you.</p> <p>Actually speaking of puerile and anal-retentive......... you could be an SNL character (pipe and all)</p> <p>Obviously if you ban the thing that makes a gun a gun (boollets in the vernacular), then you have effectively banned the gun itself.</p> <p>That is what the SCOTUS decision said about trigger locks (which invalidates <u>every</u> "safety" law in the country). So you also believe that every regulation, from banning lead to primer markings, are also un-Constitutional (because it makes it harder to own and operate a gun)? <br />  </p> <p><br /> Have you actually <i>read </i>the decision? Scalia believes that the Second Amendment is there to protect us "from tyranny". Which means we not only have the "right" to defend ourselves from people breaking into our homes, but gives us the "right" of parity with the government. Which means the decision makes illegal <u>all</u> regulations against machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, main battle tanks, and B-52s. And any obstruction to that "right" not individually removed through due process (restraining orders, insanity, prior convictions) is un-Constitutional. Which means every gang member and hood rat with no prior convictions can buy any number of weapons they choose, anytime, and the SCOTUS says you can't stop them. Does that make you feel <i>more </i>safe, or <i>less </i>safe?<br /> <br /> The SCOTUS decision just removed any barriers to a personal arms race in every neighborhood in the nation.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265246 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265246 <p>That is what the SCOTUS decision said about trigger locks (which invalidates <u>every</u> "safety" law in the country). So you also believe that every regulation, from banning lead to primer markings, are also un-Constitutional (because it makes it harder to own and operate a gun)? <br />  </p> <p><br /> Have you actually <i>read </i>the decision? Scalia believes that the Second Amendment is there to protect us "from tyranny". Which means we not only have the "right" to defend ourselves from people breaking into our homes, but gives us the "right" of parity with the government. Which means the decision makes illegal <u>all</u> regulations against machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, main battle tanks, and B-52s. And any obstruction to that "right" not individually removed through due process (restraining orders, insanity, prior convictions) is un-Constitutional. Which means every gang member and hood rat with no prior convictions can buy any number of weapons they choose, anytime, and the SCOTUS says you can't stop them. Does that make you feel <i>more </i>safe, or <i>less </i>safe?<br /> <br /> The SCOTUS decision just removed any barriers to a personal arms race in every neighborhood in the nation.</p> <p>There aren't many times when I agree with Scalia, but the last seven years have&nbsp;suggested to&nbsp;me that occasionally you *DO* have to shoot the government officers.&nbsp; That no one has done so indicates to me a failure of that theory, however.&nbsp; Private ownership of guns did nothing to prevent the tyranny of the Bush/Cheney years.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265251 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265251 <p>There aren't many times when I agree with Scalia, but the last seven years have&nbsp;suggested to&nbsp;me that occasionally you *DO* have to shoot the government officers.&nbsp; That no one has done so indicates to me a failure of that theory, however.&nbsp; Private ownership of guns did nothing to prevent the tyranny of the Bush/Cheney years.</p> <p>Have YOU read it Mattloch? You may think you have. That is not what he said.</p> <p>I can disregard RF's puffery but your interpretation of just the Scalia opinion is more than a stretch.</p> <p>But then, who on here will ever call you on it?</p> <p>He said nothing to invalidate the Title II or III regs.............</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265256 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265256 <p>Have YOU read it Mattloch? You may think you have. That is not what he said.</p> <p>I can disregard RF's puffery but your interpretation of just the Scalia opinion is more than a stretch.</p> <p>But then, who on here will ever call you on it?</p> <p>He said nothing to invalidate the Title II or III regs.............</p> <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;</span><a id="title_permalink" title="Permalink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html"><span style="font-size: small"><font face="Georgia" color="#111111">I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th</font></span></a></p> <p><span style="font-size: small"><font face="Georgia" color="#111111"> <p>Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.</p> <p>I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That's what they're made for.</p> <p>But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.</p> <p>I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I'm torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn't find the majority position unreasonable.</p> <p>So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can't, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?</p> <p>The fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.</p> <p>Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that's absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194311/"><font color="#058b7b">lead to many more American deaths</font></a>. But I don't begrudge him that. If he thinks that's the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We'll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn't free.</p> <p>But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.</p> <p>That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won't bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendment and how important it is that we ignore the constitution when it comes to the fourth.</p> <p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </font></span></p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265399 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265399 <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;</span><a id="title_permalink" title="Permalink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html"><span style="font-size: small"><font face="Georgia" color="#111111">I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th</font></span></a></p> <p><span style="font-size: small"><font face="Georgia" color="#111111"> <p>Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.</p> <p>I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That's what they're made for.</p> <p>But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.</p> <p>I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I'm torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn't find the majority position unreasonable.</p> <p>So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can't, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?</p> <p>The fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.</p> <p>Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that's absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2193813/entry/2194311/"><font color="#058b7b">lead to many more American deaths</font></a>. But I don't begrudge him that. If he thinks that's the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We'll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn't free.</p> <p>But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.</p> <p>That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won't bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendment and how important it is that we ignore the constitution when it comes to the fourth.</p> <p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/ill-trade-you-the-2nd-ame_b_109531.html</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </font></span></p> <p>Scalia said in the habeas corpus case that anyone writing 70 pages of opinion is just blowing smoke to try to justify a bad decision.</p> <p>.</p> <p>Guess his 64-page opinion was *JUST* right.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265403 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265403 <p>Scalia said in the habeas corpus case that anyone writing 70 pages of opinion is just blowing smoke to try to justify a bad decision.</p> <p>.</p> <p>Guess his 64-page opinion was *JUST* right.</p> <p>He had 5 to go before the &quot;limit&quot;, What happened?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265407 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265407 <p>He had 5 to go before the &quot;limit&quot;, What happened?</p> <p>As I said before, this is one of those issues that I've changed my mind about over the years.</p> <p>I'm all for private gun ownership.&nbsp; I want the ability to defend myself if some nut threatens me on the phone.</p> <p>I plan on taking lessons from my SIN and buying my own firepower.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the meantime, my husband has his cannon!</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265424 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/ChicoEsquela/29101/#c_265424 <p>As I said before, this is one of those issues that I've changed my mind about over the years.</p> <p>I'm all for private gun ownership.&nbsp; I want the ability to defend myself if some nut threatens me on the phone.</p> <p>I plan on taking lessons from my SIN and buying my own firepower.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the meantime, my husband has his cannon!</p>