Ot: Gotta Love This Guy
Posted 01 July 2005 - 07:55 AM
No thought went into this statement. Any resemblence to real thinking is purely coincidental.
Posted 01 July 2005 - 01:20 PM
I would rather send $ to individual state efforts to ban such activities, which I understand at a state level if the state bans eminent domain for such purposes that is still legal.
Posted 01 July 2005 - 04:33 PM
I agree it sends a much clearer message but the decision is the decision and will not be changed.
Hf individual states or cities want to do that then the SCOTUS says it is OK.
However, maybe the message will help efforts such as I am suggesting.
There are states that have outright bans on activity as such. Just need to make that all 50 states.
Posted 01 July 2005 - 05:19 PM
I could not have said it better myself!
A friend of mine has been following this long before I. He gave me the understanding that the wording of the changes allows a local municipality/govt to override a state ban here. This is third hand to me so if anyone can shed a little light on this aspect please do. If this is the case, backing state efforts may be an effort in futility. Perhaps this would limit things but to what extent. I wonder how this could be applied...say to our hobby...would a local govt be able to allow an individual to have a registered full auto even if the state bans it? I could think of a bunch of ways to apply that. Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable members here can clear this up a bit better than I.
Another thing my friend mentioned is that the outed citizen is supposed to get fair market value (which I have heard is BS...one of my friends got 50+ acres taken on overlook mountain in Woodstock NY and got $55K for an extremely valuable property...to Make a Park!) My friend said that if a company has the zoning changed to commercial on the property they want to steal then the market value will be much less...further screwing the american citizen.
I do not claim to know the best way to figt this type of thing but it sure feels good to see an enemy of the constitution be "forced to eat his own feces". I think it is a perfect, non violent retaliation that sends a clear message. I could only imagine what things would be like if we all jumped on this bandwagon and applied it in a global context. I have always wanted to turn Hillary's house into a rod and gun club!
What should we do here...take a collection and send a donation from all of us on the board? Just send individual donations? Do nothing? I think we need to get behind this and back him up...as long as he is not going to buy beer with the money and a new car.
Oh the possibilities!
Posted 01 July 2005 - 05:53 PM
This "ruling" is a travesty of our legal system and gives big business limitless power over the little guy. I cannot believe there are no checks and balances installed here.
Shit... am I sounding like a liberal?
Posted 02 July 2005 - 07:38 AM
Posted 02 July 2005 - 05:00 PM
Posted 02 July 2005 - 06:42 PM
Posted 05 July 2005 - 06:43 PM
http://www.dallasnew...c.65ecc775.html [Registration to the Dallas Morning News Is Free.]
In this second article it has been suggested that Walmart should be interested in developing the other United States Supreme Court Justices houses/ properties. Woo-Hoo, I'm all for that!!!