Gun control

Dune wrote: We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.

The executive branch does create quasi-law in this manner, but if we are going to be picky these are regulations, not laws.  They are just as binding on citizens as laws, though.

The executive branch also has the power of the executive order, which theoretically is not law, but certainly carries the force of law.

Clark Kent wrote: SR_Crewchief wrote: Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law. The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution. Well, yes and no. The Judicial Branch has more power than to simply declare laws unconstitutional.  The Judicial Branch can also interpret laws (including the Consitution).  And since these interpretations are legally binding on lower courts, the result is judge-made law. There are many areas of law where there is very little legislation, and mostly judge-made law.  Torts, for instance.  You will have to look hard to find in a statute book the law that you are liable for your own negligence.  That is judge-made law.  Almost all civil tort suits in this country are founded entirely in judge-made law.  Slip and fall?  Judge made.  Car accidents?  Judge made. Then there are the interpretations.  Miranda warnings?  Judge-made by interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. We have a common law system.  We have lots of judge-made law.

And that's interpratation of existing law not creating law whole cloth. My point is that no court is empowered to create new law. Yes, Miranda is interpretation, Roe v Wade is interpretation, etc, etc etc. Including the tort citing you made. Without an appeal requiring interpretation there would be no president for the later cases in lower courts to cite. But it's still not new law, it interpretation of how existing law should be enforced and/or excercised.

I think AdmiralSenn mkaes a good point....as a pro-gun person, you are kinda forced to be "whole-hearted" about it.

Once you ban one type of rifle, then it's another...next thing you know you have to give up any gun that can penetrate a bullet-proof vest! Don't laugh, they've already tried!

The AWB just shows that these law-makers have no clue what they're talking about! As long as it looks scary, it's illegal. Who cares about functionality!

Anyone familiar with Diane Feinstein? She's some old political hag from Califonia. She is one of the most outspoken people against assault weapons and guns in general, yet she has a concealed carry permit and armed bodyguards!

I guess so long as you're rich, you're life is worth protecting with a firearm. I guess even anti-gun politicians aren't so against guns as to pack one themselves.....**edited**ing hypocrits!

What about the new "sniper rifle" ban that anti-gun lobbyists are trying to get through? It bans "heavy and medium" "sniper" rifles on the basis that they could be used by terrorists. Let me see, what could that include? Obviously, the .50 BMG is a target, but what about that .30-06 in your closet? It has a scope, and is not a .22, so it is a medium sniper rifle. Hurry, take it away!! If you put a scope on your lever action .30-30, guess what? .25-06 varmit rifle? Definately a terrorist weapon. Better take that .222 target rifle away too. Even if they ban .50 guns, that would include blackpowder rifles and several specialty cartridges. They could even stretch that to shotguns if they wanted to. While the NRA may have its faults, I think that it is a much needed organization. Without them, there is no telling what kind of laws would have been passed at the insistence of gun grabbers without our knowledge. They do advocate firearms safety, and that is one of their main points for new members. If you join the NRA, one of the first things they send you is info on training in your area if you want it. Finally, I am not against gun control, but I think what we have in the books now is good and should be enforced much better.

Bugg wrote: True be that, couse only the Leglislative branch can make laws, only the excutative law can veto them and only the judicial branch can enforce them checks and balances, gotta love 'em

The judicial branch can inforce nothing.

Not technically true. The judicial branch carries out sentencing and reverses decisions; therefore, on a technical standard can be seen as enforcers (or lackthereof) of laws. If the judicial branch sees a law as unconstitutional it can enforce the reversal of it by not sentencing those charged with the law/crime.

Yes technicaly true, they decide sentencing, but this isnt enforcement, it is judgement. Both are judgment, a quote i like is "The judicial branch has neither the power of the sword(enforcement) nor the power of the purse(ability to levy taxes) Their position is merely judgment."

Very true.

psshh... wish I even had a gf...

how bout you?

Boy, I wish the fiancee would let me have 3 other girlfriends.