The Right Opinion

Shooting Down the 2nd Amendment, One Lawsuit at a Time

By Arnold Ahlert · Oct. 11, 2012

It was one of those little stories that most people miss, even more so when it is released during a heated presidential election. But it is one that is critically important because it represents an unprecedented power grab by the one profession that has arguably done more damage to America than any other. If Americans don't demand an end to this nonsense, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The details of the story are both simple and infuriating: a New York appeals court in has ruled that a former high school athlete shot in 2003 can sue – the companies that made and distributed the handgun used to shoot him.

Danny Williams, now 25, was promising high school basketball player who was shot in the stomach while playing hoops in front of his house. As a victim, he deserves nothing but sympathy. Cornell Caldwell, who shot him in a case of mistaken identity, is currently in prison, and deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the distributor and manufacturer of the gun involved?

The continued pursuit of this case rests on the idea that gun manufacturer, Beemiller, “knew” it was making guns tied to urban street crime, as did the gun distributor, MKS Supply, which was working closely with Beemiller. They “knew” because the gun used to shoot Williams was among some 250 guns purchased at Ohio gun shows by now-convicted gun trafficker James Nigel Bostic. Williams' attorneys contend that gun show dealer Charles Brown, also “had to have known” Bostic was buying guns for illegal purposes.

Attorneys for the gun industry – an ominous phrase that inadvertently reveals the staggering scope of where trial lawyers would like to take the concept of “legal causation” – countered that Brown believed Bostic was planning to open a gun shop. More importantly, Brown followed all the rules set out by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, regulating gun-show sales.

The industry attorneys added two other important details to their argument as well: first, because the gun sales occurred in Ohio, New York State has no legal standing in the case. Second, Beemiller and MKS Supply are insulated from liability by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That law was enacted in 2005 and ostensibly protects firearm manufacturers and sellers from being held liable for harm caused by the criminal misuse of their non-defective products.

That such a law is even necessary is a great indication of where the legal profession would like to take this country. In case you don't know what I mean, ask yourself this: if the gun distributor can be held liable, and then, in turn, the gun manufacturer, why not the company that mined the ore to make the gun? Why not the smelter of that ore, or the state where that ore was taken out of the ground?

And as always in a case involving firearms, partisan politics is also part of the mix. “This important ruling states that gun companies who choose to supply the criminal gun market are not above the law,” said Jonathan Lowy, a Brady Center attorney who, along with Buffalo lawyer Terrence Connors, represents Williams. The Brady Center is named after Jim Brady who was seriously wounded when John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate President Reagan on March 30, 1981. Again, Jim Brady merits the sympathy of a nation. His center's efforts to eviscerate the Second Amendment do not.

In the initial ruling on the case, state Justice Frederick J. Marshall agreed with the gun manufacturers, and dismissed it on May 18, 2011. This ruling overturns that one, but it's not over. “We believe [the lower court ruling dismissing the case] was a courageous and legally correct decision, but the Fourth Department was unwilling to follow his well-reasoned opinion,” said Jeffrey Malsch, who represents MKS Supply. “Whether we appeal or not, we are confident that ultimately the facts will contradict the baseless allegations in the complaint, and the case will be dismissed.”

That's the small picture. The larger picture is what should deeply concern every American. Nothing has affected this nation more deeply than the “sue everyone” mentality that is rapidly turning virtually any interaction between two human beings into a potentially litigious event. Add the reams of rules and regulations enacted by government at every level to the mix – so much so that the law not only becomes unknown, but unknowable – and the trajectory is clear: we are litigating and regulating our way into a totalitarian strait-jacket.

The solution? It begins with tort reform, but that is only a beginning. Lawyers who would pursue unlimited causation must be sanctioned. Repeat offenders should be disbarred. The alternative is the continued expansion of causality to the point where not only freedom becomes a casualty, but the economic health of the nation as well.

As for this particular case, the long term – and progressive – objective is clear: the Second Amendment can effectively be overturned without having to go through that “messy” process of acquiring the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures to do so. All we have to do is get enough courts to hold enough gun-makers liable for crimes committed with firearms, and we'll eventually make it impossible for gun manufacturers to remain in business. Make no mistake: that's what these legal termites and their enablers are hard at work trying to do.

And for the very first time since the 2005 law was enacted, a court is letting them do it.

38 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

Judicial legislation must also be stopped. The Judges that enabled this to proceed must be removed from the bench. We should have term limits for judges, lifetime appointments must go, they surely are the despotic branch of government, and ruling against the second amendment makes them traitors.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 9:17 AM

TL671 in FL said:

Believe what you will, this is NOT a victory for "gun control". It only means it will go back to the court that threw it out in the first place, so they can throw it out again. One more thing, RE: "Shooting Down The Second Amendment", MOLON LABE

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Tom in TX said:

It is my understanding that the Appellate judges in NY are appointed by the Governor from the ranks of elected NY Supreme Court judges. In addition to tort reform, this illustrates why the "down ballot" elections are so important. We may think that state senators or reps, city councils, even governor isn't as much fun as talking about the presidential race. But electing people at all levels that support not only gun rights, but all freedoms, is critical to this country. Over time, that will ensure that anti-freedom rulings like this will not take place.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia said:

Part of the solution is for us to hold responsible those who take guns away from lawful gun owners and thereby make them the victims of the lawless who keep thier guns for criminal purposes. These gun grabbers
(they only grab the guns from compliant, law abidibng citizens) are certainly as liable as would be the gun manufacturer -- but it is the criminal who uses the gun for criminal purposes that is the real problem.

Mayor Bloomberg is perhaps the best example, by creating thousands of law abiding victims who are defenslesss against those who obey no law. The owners of private businesses, such as the Aurora Movie Complex, who restrict the legal carry by CWP holders, are certainly not responsible for the shootings deaths/injuries there. But if we are going to place the blame on the gun rather than the criminal who misuses it, then we must logically also blame those like Bloomberg who limit the right of law abiding citizens to self-defense with the same firearm.

In this case, we have predatory lawyers looking for a new source of litigation gold. Most of them probably carry, or have a private security team. Even those in Bloomberg country can get a special exemption to legally carry, if they know, and pay, the right people.

The highest crime is in the "gun free zones", and the lowest crime is in districts with Concealed or open carry permits. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. The paperwork will take hours.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

MD: The movie theater owners are responsible, they made it difficult if not impossible for people to protect themselves once the madman started shooting. The best alternative, don't patronize places like that. Even in Cheyenne we have a mall that prohibits firearms. When the signs went up I walked around and told the owners of stores why I will not be patronizing them.

"The highest crime is in the "gun free zones", and the lowest crime is in districts with Concealed or open carry permits." The lowest crime is in states were there is Constitutional Carry, "No permit needed"

"

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 11:01 AM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

You're right of course that had any of the patrons been armed, James Holmes might have been stopped before he hurt and killed so many innocent people.

But the real point of allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves is not so that they can shoot back, but so that they will be less likely to need to. Had Holmes faced a credible threat that several movie-goers would immediately return fire, he probably would have thought twice about his plan.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Miss Kitty in Missouri said:

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" do they not understand? It's already bad enough in some states. If all law abiding citizens packed, we'd all be safer.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT is NOT THE ANSWER, it's the problem (at least part of the problem). Please consider the incremental loss of gun "rights" ever since the "right" to bear arms was placed under the jurisdiction of the non-Biblical U.S. Constitution, and ultimately thereby under the power of a 5 to 4 majority of mostly non-Christian Supreme Court justices.

"As a gun owner and hunter, I am very concerned about my 'right' to keep and bear arms. However, as the Christian head of my home, I am much more concerned about my God-ordained responsibility to keep and bear arms for the protection of my family, home, and possessions. I am not a Second Amendment advocate. Americans who tout the Second Amendment as their authority to keep and bear arms may ultimately do more harm than good to their so-called right....

"Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise.... If you look to the second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings."

For more, see "Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical?" at
http://www.missiontoisrael.org....

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

The URL above should be: http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.php.

"Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword (equivalent to a side arm today) in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise yes Yah." (Psalm 149:6-9).

You don't need the Second Amendment (which only provides a right) when you have Psalm 149 (which charges us with a responsibility). You might be surprised by Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt's take on this. You can listen to it at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/tapelist.php#goa.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Truthseeker in Springfield, MO replied:

@Ted, you make an interesting point about not looking to the 2nd Amendment for your Biblically-based rights. However, since a vast majority of the country doesn't recognize your position, throwing out the 2nd Amendment will only make more victims, including yourself. Do you honestly think you can protect your family by matching the firepower of the drug cartels? Didn't think so.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Truthseeker, thanks for your input. I'm not suggesting throwing out the Second Amendment today. My point today is to expose the Constitution for the failure it has been. As Libertarian attorney Lysander Spooner wrote in the mid-19th century: the Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” (Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 7, The Constitution of No Authority, http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#.>) My reason for doing so is so that one day yours and my posterity may do it right(eous) and return to our true 17th-century Christian American foundations.

The Constitutional Republic is doomed to fall on at least two counts: it was built on sand instead of rock as per Matthew 7:24-27 and because it's divided house (Matthew 12:25) that unequally yokes Christians and non-Christians together as leaders in defiance of 2 Corinthians 6:4-18.

With this inevitability in mind, I hope you and others will join me in preparing the ground for a future posterity of our children to build upon the rock with Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11).

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

Uhhhhhhhhh Ted, I hate to point out the fallaciousness of your argument, but the Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right ... it ONLY recognizes that our right to keep and bear arms is a Natural Right given to us at birth by Nature's God. Please go back and study the Declaration of Independence to understand where our inalienable rights come from!!!

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Son of Liberty, thank you for responding. If you will go back and carefully read what I wrote, you will see that I nowhere stated bearing arms was a Second Amendment right.

As for the alleged "inalienable rights," it's another bill of goods that's been sold to us under the guise of something good, when in fact it was a Pandora's box to much of trouble America faces today. Please consider the following:

"The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including homosexuals and infant murderers, demand their rights, but few are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.

"The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the framers had in mind:

'John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty.' (C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)

"R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

'….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.' (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.)..."

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

"You don't need the Second Amendment (which only provides a right)"

Your words Ted. As for the rest of your diatribe about "inalienable rights" being a bill of goods, I would love to be able to watch you debate Thomas Jefferson (if it were possible) and watch him school you on Christian duty. Everyone thinks he was an athiest, however they are wrong, as they take the fact of his pointing out what a scam organized religion can be. I am a spiritualist, and believe in God and Christ. But I also realize that God helps those who help themselves, and you sir, need to go and read up on John Locke and his treatises on government. Read Cicero and several other classic works. Also realize that the Founder's recognized the right of self defense as a primal law of nature! Hence the reason they put in the Second Amendment as a recognized God Given right. John Adams said it when he stated "Self defense is a primal law of nature which I have not surrendered by caveat to any other entity, nor would I if I could."

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

You're absolutely right. It should be "recognizes" not "provides." Sometimes, even I revert back to old habits. Thanks for the correction.

As for Jefferson, I agree he was neither an atheist nor a deist (at least in the sense we use it today). However, Jefferson (who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament, was clearly antichrist.

As for responsibilities versus rights, I stand on what I wrote above.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM

countrygirl in Texas replied:

Ted,
Far be it from me to start arguing theology. I'm sure you could walk circles around me in that department. But the hope I hold onto, the redemption I claim, is spelled out pretty simply, and it includes the assurance that " It is for freedom that Christ has set us free." Galatians 5:1
Preaching freedom to the captive is following Christ's example.
We aren't going to have heaven on earth til God does it, and until then, this country under our Constitution has been and remains (though barely) the brightest beacon of hope and freedom in the world. If non-believers can get behind God's principle of freedom by defending the Constitution, they are getting in on His blessings without even realizing where they came from. And with that freedom, those who preach God's truth remain at liberty to keep preaching it. That's the best I can hope for.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Countrygirl thank you for your kind response. Has the Constitution provided us liberty or has instead Patrick Henry's predictions come true:

"From childhood, Americans are indoctrinated to believe that, thanks to the Constitution, America is the freest nation on earth:
'The media … has played a key role in persuading people that we are the most free nation on earth. While this may or may not be true, most people have never considered this possibility: If all of the other nations were under 100% totalitarian dictatorships, and the United States of America was only under a 95% totalitarian dictatorship, it could still be said that “America is the most free nation on earth.” So it is a rather meaningless boast.' (James Bruggeman, epilogue to "Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary of Romans 13:1-7")

'Suppose it be “the best government on earth,” does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?' (Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority, http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#.)

"Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Patrick Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:

'…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences.... I see great jeopardy in this new Government.' (Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003, 2nd ed.) pp. 200-08.)

"In contrast to the federalists’ failed predictions, this and nearly everything the anti-federalists forecast about the Constitution has come true."

For more, see Chapter 3 "WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 6:24 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

Ted,

While I agree with you that it is not only the right, but the responsibility of the God-fearing man to be armed for the protection of his family, I must disagree with your statements about the 2nd Amendment. This Amendment simply recognizes the God-given right (and inherent responsibility) of self-protection and projibits the Federal government from infringing upon that right. There is no contradiction between the two.

Not every citizen recognizes Biblical law, therefore we must have secular laws for those that refuse to recognize a higher authority.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

RAB, I understand your point, But history is history and what I posted is precisely what's occurred. My point is to wake people up to the superiority of Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments that the constitutional framers rejected and which hold the only answer to save America from the precipice upon which she teeters..

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Sorry Ted, but your brand of puritanical tyranny is suspect, and I don't buy into your self proclaimed blasphemy, but you go right on preaching your idiocy, your brand of tyranny is no better than islam, and I for one find the Constitution as written is the most perfect document ever written for the governance of man, to avoid the tryanny you would impose. Good luck, I think you are deranged, and I pray anyone of your ilk will never rule over me or any other real Americans.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

My self-proclaimed blasphemy!?! Please elaborate and quote me when you do.

My brand of tyranny is no better than Islam!?! I'm promoting Yahweh's morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments and you equate it with Islam. You'll have to take that one up with the King of kings and Lord of lords.

The Constitution the most perfect document ever written for the governance of men!?! I guess you don't believe Psalm 19:7-11.

The tyranny I would impose!?! The only thing I did was point you back to Psalm 149:6-9 as our authority for bearing arms. You must really hate the Word of God!

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 6:15 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Wrong again Ted, I love the word of God, but hate when it is twisted and manipulated to suppress freedom.

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Okay, please explain how my citing Psalm 149:6-9 suppresses your freedom. And when you're finished with that, how about answering my other responses to your false accusations.

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

wjm,

Your words show you know even less about The Word of God than you do about the "Constitution as written." If you really did " ... love the word of God, ... ", you wouldn't call His Law "tyranny". His Perfect Moral Law is His Word ! "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the Mouth Of God. " That's Christ quoting His Law.

Are you going to call Christ's mandate "tyranny" as well ????!! "Say on babbler ! "

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

wjm,

In your first comment above you said: "We should have term limits for judges, lifetime appointments must go, ..." Then in this comment you say: " ... and I for one find the Constitution as written is the most perfect document ever written for the governance of man, to avoid the tryanny you would impose."

That Constitution you're so much in favor of provides for no such thing as "term limits for judges". Art III, Sec 1 's only restriction ("as written") to limit of term is: "The Judges, ... shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour ... ".

Now, that's a quote from that " ... Constitution as written ... " that you so boldly claim " ... is the most perfect document ever written for the governance of man, to avoid ..." what you call the "tyranny" of God Almighty's Law and to remove this "despotic branch of government" you complained of in your first comment above. (If it's so "perfect as written", why then the need for "amendments" ????)

This shows that you don't even understand that "Constitution as written". Therefore, you are in no position to intelligently discuss or debate it, here or anywhere else.

If you do understand it, then your own words prove you to be double minded. And "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

As George Gordon used to say: "We have a babbler before us today. Say on babbler ! "

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ed Watts in Near Palm Springs replied:

The Second Amendment, like The Constitution, does not grant any right(s) whatsoever; it merely guarantees that the government will not legislate against a God-given right which is inherent upon man by virtue of his existence.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado said:

They really need to start going ofter the rope makers, and the swimming pool builders everytime someone hangs themself or drowns, after all according to the liberals this would be the logical conclusion reached after due consideration. The rope makers obviously knew that a person would commit suicide with their rope. And the swimming pool manufacturers knew that a small child would drown, even if their fat *ss Mom, Guardian, Babysitter wasn't paying attention to where their kid was ( I mean its not THEIR fault right?!), the blame rests with the pool manufacturer.

Geez - when are we going to stop this drivel from pervading our society people?

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Ted in Dayton, OH said:

Judges who render decisions that are not clearly supported by the Constitution and/or black letter case law should be summarily reviewed for possible impeachment proceedings. We have allowed judicial activists to dismantle the foundations of our Republic piece meal.
Jefferson was rightly concerned that the judicial branch would be the most abused and dangerous threat to freedom within the Republic. Judges should be held accountable, but rarely are. That is why the left will fight to the death over federal appeals and SCOTUS appointments. That is how they have had their most damaging initiatives implemented.
America has been most brutally betrayed and wounded by her internal enemies.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

Ted in Dayton, All we have to do is look at other countries that took private firearms away from their citizens. Crime in some rose dramatically and in others like Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Red China the State controlled or in China's place still controls every aspect of theri citizens lives. No criminal will be discouraged from breaking into someone's home when he knows for sure they are not armed. If all private weapons are taken away the only one with weapons will be the police and criminals. That is why your statement about activist judges and the lefts willingness to have them appointed to the bench is so true. If we don't have a turn-around in this country none of us will be safe.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Old Sarge: The use of arms to overthrow a brutal government. Take a look at the story of Hanukkah. The Maccabees used the arms of their day to overthrow the government tyrants. This is the reason for the Second Amendment.

And if you look at the Talmud (book of Jewish Laws), if someone breaks into your home at night you have to kill him. Not that you may kill him. For more on this go to JPFO.org, Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

Howard, the law you refer to is not from the Talmud (which, for the most part, is the polar opposite of Yahweh's morality as codified in the Torah in the Old Testament) but from Exodus 22:

"If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. (Exodus 22:2-3)

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska replied:

I re-read your post after posting my response and if, indeed, the Talmud teaches you MUST kill a burglar, it's a distortion of Exodus 22:2-3.

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

billy396 in ohio said:

The lawyers that filed this case should be disbarred. We do, in fact, have a federal law that negates the very idea, i.e. the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act was passed to STOP this sort of legal malpractice. On a side note, Mayor Bloomberg is wealthy enough that he doesn't have to worry about the federal laws that he ignored when he sent his lackeys from the state of New York to Columbus, Ohio to buy guns at a gun show. Interstate trafficking in firearms without a Federal Firearms License is a federal crime with a 20 year sentence attached, unless you have enough money to discourage any law enforcement agency foolish enough to try to enforce that law. The two appointments that Barack Obozo has made to the Supreme Court should be enough to scare anyone with a brain away from reelecting the fool. Unfortunately, he has enough people that lack those mental faculties on his side that we must fight even harder to defeat our new dictator.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM

tdrag in South Carolina replied:

billy396 you are correct Unfortunately almost 50% of our population (I won't call them Americans) either don't know or don't care about the Constitution. They have been aided and abetted by the Democrat party the government school system, and the likes of Obama and Biden. We are very close to a total takeover of our nation by these losers as evidenced by the up coming election. I fear that even if R&R are successful on Nov. 6th. It will take a monumental effort over many years to flush this scum out of our nation. We who believe in America must be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice right here at home.

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Robert Alexander in Texas said:

ALL government law is Religion in action. It's a heart matter on whom we serve.

Joshua 24:15: And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yahweah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweah.

Deuteronomy 30:
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Friday, October 12, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Chris in Wisconsin said:

The Second Amendment is not going save anyone from the tyranny upon us as a nation. The Constitution is dead for all practical purposes any way and has been for a long time.

Your first gun control law was the sawed off shotgun law, and they've taken away so many of your "rights" (gun and otherwise) by gradual increments over time that the loss of them isn't even recognized by most.

So many are fooled by this "right" to a CCW permit nonsense. Why do you need a "permit" if it's a "right".

The US already is (and has been for a long time) a communist country with the 10 planks to the Communist Manifesto in full force and effect.

You'd think people would be feed up by now with: Property tax -- The 1st Plank. Income tax -- The 2nd Plank. Inheritance tax -- The 3rd. Plank. Federal Reserve Bank -- The 5th Plank. Need I list them all ?

And now it's morphed into Corporate Fascism -- by design. And "We The People" keep voting for those who (via their controllers) keep this wicked system going. How many times must this "voting" to put "the good guys in" insanity be repeated before this nation comes to ???

His Kingdom and His Ten Commandments, with His Laws, Statutes and Judgments enforced under the New Covenant, is the the only choice for "The Supreme Law Of The Land".

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Billy in Florida said:

OK I agree, but how do we stop Judicial Legislation? What would the law say, where would it be passed? Be specific, put together a plan of action. I haven't a clue. Do we need a law that allows us to "sue" judges that redefine laws to meet their agenda? What kind of mess would that make?
Billy

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Chris in Wisconsin replied:

Billy,

Are you asking this question to me (if so, click the reply button) or asking a question to the author of the article in general?

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM