🚀 go-pugleaf

Never@your.door (Capt. Meat) writes:


>>>"Hiro Protagonist" scrawled:


>>>I take it you have never had a class on "the US Government".  The Supreme
>>>court does _not_ decide what is "right or wrong" nor what is a "good law or
>>>bad law", rather it determines whether a law is constitutional -- nothing
>>>more -- nothing less.  The Brady bill case (or its constitutionality) has
>>>nothing to do with guns and background check. 
>>>



>>Capt. Meat wrote:

>>Good law is constitutional.
>>Bad law is unconstitutional.
>>While the Supreme Court left intact a good portion of the 
>>Brady Bill, they struck down the Fed's attempt to force
>>mandatory backround checks, which would be executed and 
>>paid for by the states. 
>>
>>Show me the chapter you apparently
>>skipped over, and read to me where I fucked up.


>>> It is about the federal
>>>governments right to force states to use state resources to enforce federal
>>>laws.


>>See above.


>>>  Its was struck down on these grounds alone and personally I think
>>>this was not only the right decision but most important decision of the
>>>week. 


>>Out of all the rulings last week that in one way or another 
>>gave more voice to the throats of the states, you're enthralled
>>with one redneck's crusade to avoid the service charges of checking
>>out John Q. Hayseed's rap-sheet, huh? 
>>

>>> Think of the bigger picture here-


>>Yeah, and when you finally open yer eyes, look around,
>>and think "Tobacco Settlement" and realize you're
>>so far off-base, you're out of bounds...
>>
>>Corporations run states. And the state runs you.


>Capt. Meat also said:

>Seeing as I ran across a seemingly factual article concerning
>the reason why you felt I was in dire need of instruction
>(Reminds me of some comedian's bit about getting busted 
>for "smuggling books" into Kentucky), I'm enclosing
>the following fish-wrap...

>Regardless, you're still wrong. And what's funny is yer
>arrogance and condescending tone, which usually accompanies
>a certain amount of wit and insight, yet it appears you're
>forgetting to put the horse IN FRONT of the cart again.

>You can bring a punk to water, but you can't make him bathe...



>Capt. Meat



>*****From the Green Bay News Chronicle*****



>                              Background checks and
>                          paperwork are still the law in
>                                Wisconsin despite a
>                            weakening of the federal
>                            Brady handgun law by the
>                               U.S. Supreme Court 

>                          By Nick Wood 
>                          Chronicle Reporter

>                          Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
>                          Friday striking down part of the
>                          federal Brady gun law, Wisconsin
>                          residents who want to buy a handgun
>                          will still have to undergo a criminal
>                          background check and 48-hour
>                          waiting period. But any cagey
>                          criminal will tell you he can still buy
>                          a gun, legally, even in Wisconsin. 

>                          The court ruled unconstitutional the
>                          federal government forcing local law
>                          enforcement officials to conduct
>                          background checks on prospective
>                          handgun buyers. The requirement was
>                          a key provision in the Brady law to
>                          prevent convicted felons from
>                          buying handguns. 

>                          The decision does not affect
>                          Wisconsin, however, because the
>                          state already had a law requiring a
>                          background check and 48-hour
>                          waiting period for all handgun sales
>                          when the Brady law was passed in
>                          1993. 

>                          Since 1991, Wisconsin has conducted
>                          more than 206,000 background
>                          checks; some 1,400 sales have been
>                          denied to convicted felons. 

>                          WHAT THE GUN LAW 
>                          MEANS TO YOU 

>                          Under Wisconsin's current law,
>                          anybody wanting to buy a handgun
>                          from a licensed gun dealer has quite
>                          a bit of paperwork to do first.
>                          There is the federal form, which
>                          asks nearly a dozen questions about
>                          prior brushes with the law; there is
>                          the store registration form which
>                          describes the gun, price, and the
>                          name, address and phone number of
>                          the buyer; and there is the state
>                          form which asks many of the same
>                          questions as the federal form. 

I have a question. Would I be denied the right to purchase a gun in
Wisconsin, assuming I moved to Wisconsin and became a permanent resident
there? The reason I ask this question is that I have violated 18 U.S.C.
1718, which provides a penalty of one year in prison and a fine of $1,000
for sending a postcard through the mail with criticism of anyone on it.
See Cherry v. Postmaster General 272 F. Supp. 982. (D.P.R.1967), aff'd
without opioion by the First Circus, certiorari denied, 391 U.S. 914
(1968).

Based on the fact that I sent 30,000 such postcards, I used to consider
myself the number 1 criminal in the United States. This statute was
repealed as of 1991. Even so, it is clear that I USED TO BE a criminal.
So, how would I fare in Wisconsin?


jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)