seems to me that potowmack simply confuses first principles with the desirability of later legislative enactments, and ignores the fact that citizen arms ownership is fundamental and PENALTY for abusing that right to the detriment of society is the contemplated limitation on that right, not preemptive laws which infringe that right before it is abused. it also seems to me that that is exactly what mr. webster said, potowmack's attempted revisionism notwithstanding.

"The extreme libertarian vision formulated and promoted by gun rights advocates denies any viable concept of government and the legitimacy of any governing or regulatory authority. They, of course, at the same time call themselves Patriots. The Patriots will defend the people and the Constitution from government. There can be no "just powers" of regulation. Positive law becomes a code of ethics- we hang the Ten Commandments on the wall, thou shall, thou shall not- without powers of enforcement until the code has been violated. The only role for the "just powers" of government is to apply draconian punishment as an example to others who might tray." -Potowmack's derisive attack on the Constitutionally confirmed natural right to citizen's non-registered arms ownership http://www.potowmack.org/

"The essence of sovereignty consists in the general voice of the people. But each individual pursues his own interest; and consults the good of others no farther than his own interest requires. Hence the necessity of laws which respect the whole body collectively, and restrains the pursuits of individuals when they infringe the public rights." -Potowmack's own selectively bolded text from Daniel Webster's Sketches of American Policy, which it presumably includes on their site to support their derisive analysis quoted above. http://www.potowmack.org/1noahweb.html


----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 14, Issue 1



Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to
[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. parker (Robert Woolley)
  2. Re: parker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:02:26 -0600
From: Robert Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: parker
To: Firearmsregprof <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Can anybody update us on what has been happening with the Parker case in
D.C.? The trial court ruling was in late March, but I have never heard of an
appeal being filed, as was the plan all along. What is the status?



-- Bob Woolley St. Paul, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED]



"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."

                                   -- Lily Tomlin





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:35:04 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: parker
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In a message dated 1/4/2005 10:03:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Can anybody update us on what has been happening with the Parker case in
D.C.? The trial court ruling was in late March, but I have never heard of an
appeal being filed, as was the plan all along. What is the status?



According to the federal courts' PACER system, the Notice of Appeal was filed
in April 2004 and the matter was sent to the US Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit under case #04-0741. Currently the appeal is being held in abeyance
pending the outcome of a similar case, Seegars v. Ashcroft, which had oral
arguments on November 19, 2004. The Order holding the appeal in abeyance is
available (in PDF format) at this web address:


http://www.potowmack.org/park082504b.pdf


Hope that helps,

Allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/firearmsregprof/attachments/20050104/c94e825c/attachment.htm


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Firearmsregprof mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 14, Issue 1
**********************************************



_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

Reply via email to