State Supreme Court Justice to be speaking at Hatboro Masonic Lodge 5/21

[gbrown221]

I will be posting to the membership any responses I receive from State Supreme Court Justice McCaffrey. Their will be a question and answer period when after he speaks. PM me and questions you would like me to present to the Justice. I am not sure how much he will be alble to elaborate since this case is bound for his court.

He is speaking at the Hatboro, Masonic lodge on 5/21/2008.

Any Freemason interested in attending please PM me. I appolgies to the other members as this speaking engagement is open to Freemasons only.

[gbrown221]

sorry. forgot to mention . . . I was referring to the Philadelphia / NRA case.

[LittleRedToyota]

i PMed gbrown the following question:

why are the lower courts allowing testimony from people like the chief of police, etc. when this is clearly a question of law and not a question of fact?

Isn't the question simply: Is Philly allowed to make their own gun laws or not?

Whether or not these laws are a good idea doesn't factor into it at all, so why are witnesses who can only give testimony to the desirability of these laws, and not their legal status, being allowed to testify?

my guess is that Justice McCafferty's answer may refer to former US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Brandeis did a lot of good things for individual rights in this country, but he also totally wrecked judicial branch of our government.

he was the one who introduced the idea of supreme courts weighing non-legal facts (and, by extension, "compelling interests") in their decisions rather than just sticking to ruling on law. (the so-called Brandeis Brief in Muller v. Oregon)

it is a bit ironic that he both fought for individual rights, but also paved the way for the supreme court to trample on individual rights by weighing the constitution and law against "state interests".

the philly case clearly is purely an issue of law. whether or not the laws philly wants to enact make sense or are desirable should not even enter the discussion.

the PA UFA makes it illegal for philly to pass their own gun laws. period. end of story. it should not matter one bit whether or not anyone thinks these laws are a good idea or not.

if philly wants to challenge that, they should challenge the constitutionality of the PA UFA preemption clause--period. they should not be bringing in 30 witnesses to testify about violence in philly or anything like that. the only witnesses that should be allowed are those who can testify on the constitutionality of the PA UFA and/or the legality of the philly gun laws.

from: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local...A_request.html

The witness list includes Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey; emergency room experts from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania; and Joseph Vince, retired former chief of the Crime Gun Analysis branch of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

these people have no business testifying in this case. none of them are experts on the law or the constitution.

resurrect rule of law!!

rant off.

[gbrown221]

Since this section is the most viewed I am posting this invite here also.

I will be posting to the membership any responses I receive from State Supreme Court Justice McCafferty. Their will be a question and answer period when after he speaks. PM me or post here any questions you would like me to present to the Justice. I am not sure how much he will be alble to elaborate since this case (Philadelphia VS NRA) is bound for his court.

He is speaking at the Hatboro, Masonic lodge on 5/21/2008.

Any Freemason interested in attending please PM me. I appolgies to the other members as this speaking engagement is open to Freemasons only. Dinner will be available at 6:00 P.M. A donation of 10.00 is requested for dinner.

[Pa. Patriot]

That's tomorrow folks.
Post your Q's if you have some.

[fingers80002]

How can a county sheriff be allowed to revoke a LTCF,just because someone OC's or He doesn't like someone?

[lildobe]

How can a county sheriff be allowed to revoke a LTCF,just because someone OC's or He doesn't like someone?

They misuse 18 PAC §6109(e)(1):
A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

That's a section of the UFA we'd like to see repealed.

[fingers80002]

They misuse 18 PAC §6109(e)(1):
A license shall not be issued to any of the following:
(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

That's a section of the UFA we'd like to see repealed.

That is why I posted the Question.

See you Sun. ?

Hope so!!!!!!!!!

Jim

[lildobe]

See you Sun. ?

Hope so!!!!!!!!!

As long as nothing comes up, I'll be there...

And I'm glad I could answer your question

[Pa. Patriot]

Q:
When can we expect Mayor Nutter, as well as the city council members, to be charged and prosecuted for violation of 18 PACS 6120?

They know about 6120 (on record) and willfully violated it.

It is a criminal offense and is chargeable and punishable per 18 PACS §6119.

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and
ammunition.
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may
in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession,
transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition
components when carried or transported for purposes not
prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

§ 6119. Violation penalty.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, an offense under
this subchapter constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(Dec. 7, 1989, P.L.607, No.68, eff. 60 days)