gary,
Are you now trying to take away the right of citizens such as john hinkley and mark chapman and sirhan sirhan to bear arms ? too late !
on the other hand whether you like the reality of conspiracy or not - i am very suspicious in the last
few months about who really murdered robert kennedy - regardless of the santa monica attorney,penny stock scamster(endovasc,harvard scientific, etc.,)and defender of american torturer,(and fox 'news' film maker) Jack idema - i.e.- Francis Pizzulli -
who basically,through his legal intimidation all the way to the California Supreme Court made investigative journalists afraid to investigate the robert f kennedy assassination further by his legal intimidation of a tabloid in the 1990's.
i know mark cuban is a real fan of the legal and penny stock parasite pizzulli but i certainly am not.yes i do believe that the security
'protecting' robert kennedy was very suspicious that night in the los angeles hotel and although the agents protecting kennedy had the legal right to bear arms this may not apply to a .22 caliber revolver owned by the 'guard ' in back of kennedy at the time that who later admited to owning a .22 but somehow sold it before or after the fact.
so thanks francis pizzulli of italian-american bar association for all your penny stock frauds over the years for being so generous to even use some of your illicit penny stock profits from your many frauds to protect torturers such as jack idema and to use the legal system to suppress free speech (something you fear much more than guns and real terrorists on our streets.strange thatmark cuban cuban appears to be a big fan of mr.francis pizzulli.........i actually paid an attorney joshua ridless to retrieve the pizzulli vs endovasc litigation
for me from los angeles court records.
joshua or josh billed me for doing so and claims to have sent it to me but
in fact i never received it and he now claims to have 'lost' it.
(a penny for your thoughts)
Gary,
I thought you should see this bit from Daniel Hopsicker on who bought Trump's Florida mansion for a $100 million.He mentions Russian fertilizer king Dmitry Rybolovlev's place on Forbes (ranks #59 on the Forbes list of the world's billionaires, “one of Russia's richest and most discreet businessmen.” ) but also in my opinion documents what a lousy job Murdoch's WSJ does in 'covering' the story.In truth this only makes me question Forbes' billionaires list as well.After all what is a self respecting international mobster or war criminal or drug or petroleum trafficker gonna do if he don't get listed by Steve Forbes ? Complain ?! Ha.
http://www.madcowprod.com/06262008.html
Trump Mansion Sold To 'Mobsters Sans Frontieres'
Trump’s announcement of his big sale Wednesday received wide play. It was trumpeted everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Entertainment Tonight.
The Wall Street Journal, with perhaps unintended irony, called Rybolovlev, a 42-year-old Russian billionaire who currently ranks #59 on the Forbes list of the world's billionaires, “one of Russia's richest and most discreet businessmen.”
Gary,
The question before the USSC was whether or not the Second Amendment of the Constitution afforded individual law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The answer was yes it does. And this is exactly correct, and as the founding fathers intended. The denials of the dissenting Justices were intellectually dishonest at best. The right to effective means of self-defense transcends the Constitution, and is an inalienable basic human right.
As Scalia noted, the Second Amendment does not convey this right to convicted criminals, and never has, nor is it an absolute right - meaning local laws requiring proof of identity/residency, mental health, etc remain in full force and effect.
The question of the right to "bear arms" - carry a concealed weapon (CCW )- will no doubt return to the courts. The Sullivan Law will not be tested directly - the question will be: must all States adopt a 'shall-issue' rule for people who apply for CCW permits, or will States like NY remain free to place high barriers to CCW permitting so that very few law-abiding citizens actually qualify. The shall-issue doctrine, already in place in many States, simply says that if a citizen is in good standing (no criminal record, no mental health history etc), then the permit shall be issued. Most States with shall-issue CCW laws still require applicants to go through a permitting and CCW training process, and yes, some are rudimentary, and some are not. Yet those States that have 'shall-issue' CCW laws have not reported abusive problems that would suggest such a doctrine is a failure. The opposite is true. Statistically, the number of people who have a legal permit to CCW who 'go renegade' is exceptionally low.
The Sullivan Law has not been nullified, and is unlikely to be nullified. Whether Sullivan will be modified by the Courts to the 'shall issue' doctrine, or some flavor thereof, remains to be seen. I'm not placing any bets either way.
Regards,
P
Commenting by HaloScan
