Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

In a previous article, Cub Driver said:
SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the
time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

SCOTUS?

Supreme Court Of The United States. It's a standard abbreviation.


--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

In article , Cub Driver
writes:


SCOTUS

Supreme Court Of The United States

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)

Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)

... to name just a few!


While these do touch on firearms tangelntally, none of them is a direct ruling
on the MEANING of the 2nd amendment WRT individual rights or types of arms
covered.

Miller is that last case to do so, and the plaintiff was dead at the time of
the arguments, so only the government case was heard.

But Miller did affirm the right of the people to bear arms useful in the
militia, which is defined by federal law as all persons not debarred by law
(like convicted felons) capable of bearing arms.

So, if you want to fit your piper with sidewinders or .50 cal Brownings, that
would be protected, but it is doubtful that should you wish to fit it with
derringers or sawed off shotguns, that might be a problem.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:7JaEb.29034$pY.15526@fed1read04...

If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
old and tired.


What name calling?

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:OOaEb.29036$pY.18178@fed1read04...

Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty.


It appears you imagined some of it.



The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
I'll stand by my assertion.


Your assertion is false.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.


The Supreme Court reads the entire Constitution differently, but it's still
pretty clear nontheless.

Not a single one of the cases cited are 2nd Amendment



"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago.
At the
time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

SCOTUS?

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1040/
Question Presented
May prison inmates challenge the revocation of their parole after they are
re-released on parole?





Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/99/
Question Presented
Does the fact that guns were found in a locked glove compartment, or the
trunk, of a car, preclude the application of 18 U section 924(c)(1), which
imposes a 5-year mandatory prison term upon a person who "uses or carries a
firearm" "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime"?




Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/835/
Question Presented
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can
Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by
performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant
background-checks?




Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZC1.html

Was a 4th Admendment case.





... to name just a few!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:19:58 GMT Rob Perkins wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:14:49 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

But for Dubya the numbers of hours is salient and interesting because

...because you wish to criticize his military service, possibly in the
name of providing information to support a theory that he wasn't
"really" a military pilot, but traded on it anyway to get office.


No, beause it's pertinent to the discussion.


I'll
bet he has very few hours but just enough to say he was a military pilot.
But how many as PIC? Maybe his hours were in a TF-102.

So? What, fighter jets with guns are the only airplanes that make a
pilot a military pilot?


No because the TF is a two-seater.


Face it: He was a military pilot. Anyone to flies a military trainer
solo is a military pilot. And the conceit offends all of the *good*
pilots in the Materiel Command. You wish to say those people are also
not "real pilots"?


He didn't show his true pilot colors by preventing GA from flying
to Kill Devil. A "real" pilot would have take the limo instead of
ruining the experience for GA just to get one more political stunt
in during an election year.


Good gravy. Bush has more hours total in a faster and more complex

Wait I thought hours didn't matter and no one talked about them!

airplane than me, and they call *me* a pilot. He had scads more time
in military service than I ever did, and the Air Force gave *me* an
honorable discharge, and called me "military" the whole time I was
enlisted.

Beyond a very thin veneer of partisan political bickering, your case
just doesn't stand up.

What case? That he prevented GA from flying to Kill Devil? Sure it does
and he's not a real pilot because he kept GA from flying to THE celebration
of GA for the last 100 years. I'm thankful that he didn't decide to fly
out to Mojave that day.


R. Hubbell



Rob

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:02 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:7JaEb.29034$pY.15526@fed1read04...

If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
old and tired.


What name calling?

Don't take it personally.
I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.



R. Hubbell

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:16:45 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:OOaEb.29036$pY.18178@fed1read04...

Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty.


It appears you imagined some of it.



The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
I'll stand by my assertion.


Your assertion is false.


Okay I think I see your sentiments, you're looking for a fight.
You will not find one here.


R. Hubbell

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04...

I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.


Retaining the entire previous message as quoted material would not help you
understand it any better.

You've referred to name-calling several times in this thread, but you cannot
point to any name-calling when challenged on it.