Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 10:10 AM:
I'll be curious to see how those who claim that issues such as a abortion are 'settled' because of Supreme Court decisions will react to this one. My gut tells me they won't consider this 'settled'...
Will there be a new 'litmus test' for nominees to the Supreme Court?
Replies (65)
This is good news! I like a lot of the SCOTUS' judicial activism as of late!
-- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 10:37 AM
While I applaud the decision, like the Heller case it appears to be a rather weak endorsement leaving ample room for very restrictive infringements referred to as "reasonable regulations". It was also disheartening to see such a narrow margin.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 10:41 AM
I was also disappointed with the narrow margin in the Heller decision, not because it does not carry the full force of law, but because it demonstrates how tenuous our rights are and how easily it could have gone the other way.
There will be ongoing challenges and when the balance of the court changes, significant restrictive regulations can be passed or will be allowed in place. Look at the laws that remain in place in DC.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 11:10 AM
In the aftermath of Katrina some citizens had guns taken away by government forces. I never heard how those grievences were settled.
Will this court decision have any effect in preventing confiscation?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 12:44 PM
vulcan2004,
I sure hope you are right.
Old John,
New Orleans was ordered to return all confiscated weapons, but there were some hoops to jump through such as proving ownership. As a result, many states passed laws to prevent this.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 12:58 PM
Red, Thanks for the reply.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 1:24 PM
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 1:58 PM
WHY NOT,
I have all my Serial Numbers, but need to take pictures of my newest ones. As all models look alike, you can fill the numbers with white marking material to make it show up better in the picture.
vulcan2004,
I expected more voices of coming doom over this from some, but I believe Ike has shown support for the 2nd Amendment; not sure about the others.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM
Vulcan,
I suppose you have heard that old saying... as independant as a hog on ice.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 6:59 PM
It appears at least one man and his lady friend are still alive because he was armed.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 28, 2010, at 9:15 PM
Does this boil down to wether the 2nd amendment was a limitation on federal government or an empowerment of states? Or is it about the federal government saying states that join the union can't violate these rights?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 12:55 AM
Missourians and citizens of about 44 other states whose constitution guarantee their firearms rights will not be affected by this decision. The Missouri Constitution states "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
As Federal Laws almost always preempt state laws, based on the narrow language in Heller and McDonald, leave open the possibility of future, more restrictive gun control laws and it is expected that years of litigation lie ahead due to the very restrictive laws enacted in DC and expected to be adopted in Chicago that all but nullify the Court's ruling.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 6:54 AM
This, too, is President Bush's fault. Without President Bush, there would be no Justice Roberts' Supreme Court.
Does anyone believe that Supreme Court filled with Gore-appointed justices would have come down on the side of individual citizens' rights to keep and bear arms?
Just one more reason we need to limit Mr. Obama to a single term...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 8:00 AM
Now only if Illinois would allow concealed carry....
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 8:02 AM
Yea I guess if I ever have to defend myself in my car, like the guy in St. Louis yesterday, while driving through southern Illinois I will politely ask the would be robber to hold on for a second while I grab my pistol out of its case and load it.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 8:56 AM
I absolutely refuse to travel anywhere in Illinois; went to Chicago when my son graduated from boot camp, never again.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:21 AM
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:29 AM
As long as the Chicago political machine runs the People's Republic of Illinois, that won't happen.
-- Posted by vulcan2004 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 8:47 AM
Vulcan,
Same group trying to impose their heavy handed method of ruling onto the rest of the country right now I believe.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:32 AM
Shapley Hunter,
Quite a few years ago, I was having lunch with several MSHP , Sheriffs, Deputies etc and that was pretty much their consensus. This was prior to legislation allowing Officers to carry weapons outside of their jurisdiction.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:37 AM
Well, it's cerainly not an original statement on my part, it's been said and said again for years. I should have put it in quotes, but I have no idea where it originated.
It's simply taken on the status of a 'truism' as opposed to a quote, I suppose.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:57 AM
"Today, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has risen from the grave. Only a plurality was willing to use the Due Process Clause to apply an individual right to the states. The crucial fifth vote was provided by Justice Thomas' extensive fifty-six-page originalist opinion that rested solely on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Neither Justice Alito for the plurality, nor Justices Stevens or Breyer in dissent, even attempted to impeach Justice Thomas' analysis, which now stands uncontradicted in the Supreme Court Reports. Decades of academic research that has lead to a remarkable consensus among constitutional scholars that The Slaughter-House Cases was wrongly decided have now been vindicated. Only a remarkably tepid and barely defended assertion of stare decisis by Justice Alito now stands in the way of a complete restoration of the "lost" Privileges or Immunities Clause at the heart of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not that this will happen overnight. It took twenty-five years for Justice Powell's lone 1978 opinion in Bakke -- in which he accepted "diversity" as a rationale for affirmative action in schools -- to be adopted by a majority of the Court in Grutter. But adopted it eventually was."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 10:10 AM
A strict interpretation, given the premise that the founders implied individual rights as opposed to collective rights, would mean any restrictions would be an infringement. Since the SCOTUS did not rule as such and allow communities to make their own regulations I suspect certain communities will continue to make it nearly impossible for even reasonable people to purchase and posses a handgun.
-- Posted by SWBG on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 10:35 AM
SWGB hit the nail on the head.
See Wash DC and the state of Calif.
Same will happen with Chicago.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 12:28 PM
If 18 is mature enough to carry a gun in combat, then 18 is old enough to carry period.
So since neither my Dad nor my brother is a licensed dealer, I shouldn't be able to purchase a gun from them should they have one that they are willing to part with?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 3:39 PM
Theorist wrote:
"(they must have something to hide)"
So much for 'Innocent unless proven guilty'. After all, we're talking about guns, one must be presumed guilty unless proven innocent, eh?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 4:02 PM
Shapley Hunter,
I don't have any idea where the quote comes from either, just heard it all of my life and kind of thought it was funny that it was as common in law enforcement circles.
Theorist et al,
Why should I involve a licensed dealer and background check when I know for a fact that the person I am buying it from is not barred from selling it and I am not barred from buying/owning it. It is just a waste of time and money as no FFL will do a transaction for less than $25 if you are lucky.
Like DTower all my family are gun owners and we buy, sell or trade and see no need to pay an FFL transfer fee and taxes. When I get a little older, I will transfer almost all of my weapons to my children and don't want to have to pay to give something away. Why should I?
SWBG,
Exactly, glad to see you back.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 6:30 PM
Theorist.... there are many good ole boys who learn to shoot a gun by age 6 and go off with their dads to try to kill their first deer. I do not support and age limit on guns. I proudly gave my sone his first 22 rifle at age 6 and will gladly do the same for any future grandchild.
Look at what happened at Fort Hood. This happened in a location where the militiary did not carry their weapons with them. Thank God the police officer who was called to the scene had a gun on her. This is exactly what happens when you do not allow firearms in a certain area, only the criminals then are armed. If those soldiers had their weapons on them, that shooter would have been gunned down after his first shot.
I believe it was Wheels (if it wasn't you who said it before, please correct me) who had the best arguement I have ever heard on the right to carry arms. It is not guns that kill people, it is people who kill people. People who want to ban the right to carry firearms want to blame the deaths on the guns. It is equivelant to looking at how many people are killed in automobile accidents and then banning autos for causing all those deaths.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 7:55 PM
Oh, and thank God I live in a Bible thumping gun toting heartland of America. Darn proud of it too!
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 7:56 PM
Red Rhino wrote:
"I don't have any idea where the quote comes from either, just heard it all of my life and kind of thought it was funny that it was as common in law enforcement circles."
I'm certain I've heard it before, but I have never found a reference to it anywhere. I've Googled it, and found it attributed to me, on another site, back in 2003, but I've used it before that.
It's probably a paraphrase of a listed quote somewhere, but I have no idea what the original context may have been.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:03 PM
Sorry, Rhino,
I thought you were talking about my quote on the other forum. I've got too many conversations going on here. Time to call it a night, methinks!
Take care.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 9:39 PM
why do you not have to have the gov't ok to use any of our other rights i wonder,after all isn't the pen mightier than the sword?
-- Posted by 44044 on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 10:49 PM
In certain states, Michigan being one, soliciting a prostitute becomes a felony after the first offense. So if a gentleman picks up 2 in the same evening and is caught he becomes a felon. Am I to understand that some individuals believe this person should their right to own a firearm even though no weapon was used or even present in the commision of felony? Please explain why you believe such.
Also, slingshots, bows, and plethera of other projectile type weaponry can be sold openly between individuals, even though they can be used for deadly purposes. Do you also support requiring licensed dealers to be involved with sales between citizens?
Since baseball bats, hockey sticks, and similar sporting goods can be utilized for nefarious purposes, should purchase of these items require background checks, waiting periods, and other methods of scrutiny?
-- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:20 AM
Perhaps it would be easier to control the manufacture of ammunition . -- Posted by bloodyhand on Tue, Jun 29, 2010, at 8:15 PM
Hasn't that been sort of bandied about fairly recently ... like the idea of ammunition having to have 'personal ID numbers' stamped on the all bullets?
Can't remember exactly what it all was about a year or two ago (sorry to be so vague) ... except that it seems only one company could 'gear up' to provide that ammunition, and were pushing some politicians to draft a bill of some sort making it mandatory to use that ammunition ... Also mentioned was the idea that a law could be passed saying that if a person's gun was lost or stolen, he/she could be charged with the crime even though ...
Incidentally, that particular company noted that the ammunition would be very, very expensive.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:28 AM
non-biasedphilosopher,
I imagine I am in the minority, but I have stated repeatedly that I do not support a blanket prohibition on firearms ownership by all felons. Many crimes such as criminal non support, bad checks and some others do not present a threat by their possession of a firearm.
I have a friend who is in his sixties who committed a non violent crime when he was eighteen. Since then, he served in Vietnam, worked to establish a volunteer Rescue Squad, served his community all of his life and has been a model citizen, but he cannot legally own a firearm.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:38 AM
gurusmom,
Yes the ammunition thing has been bandied about and there are ongoing efforts at "microstamping. Non of this has been proven effective or really shown to provide any benefit.
A rough estimate is that I have enough components on hand to "manufacture" ten thousand rounds and I am certainly not unique as it is cheaper to buy in bulk. This does not include assembled or factory ammo on hand nor the lead and casting furnace not in use.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:45 AM
That is in part correct, as you know, it is the only right that is controlled, to this extent.
-- Posted by 44044 on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 8:46 AM
I have never committed a felony, and I don't own or even want to own a firearm. What others choose to do is their their right and decision. Leave their rights alone!
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 9:36 AM
bloodyhand,
Possibly, but it would not reduce the "criminal" use of firearms when one considers the relatively low number of rounds used in comparison to that of sport and competition, so what would be the point?
A couple of years ago, many Law Enforcement Agencies had to cut back on their qualifications due to a shortage of ammunition.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 10:22 AM
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 11:25 AM
Typical. Chicago, and the State of Illinois, are broke, but they always seem to find the money to enact legislation such as that...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 11:44 AM
I personally agree with Red ... "... I do not support a blanket prohibition on firearms ownership by all felons. Many crimes such as criminal non support, bad checks and some others do not present a threat by their possession of a firearm."
I think this describes several localities, with of course DC having been perhaps one of the largest with the problem:
"... Despite the ban, Chicago continues to struggle with gun violence."
Hard to comprehend why so many anti-gun supporters fail to see the facts that murder rates, at least, generally go down when a gun ban is lifted. Certainly I expected Chicago to take steps to limit the new ruling, but a little surprised it came so quickly.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:01 PM
gurusmom,
From what I have read they, Chicago politicians, pretty much expected to lose and have been in the process of crafting legislation to deal with that eventuality for quite some time, so it was already written.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 4:20 PM
gurusmom,
and so many people who are anti-abortion fail to see the facts that murder rates, at least, generally go down when abortion is legalized.
maybe both sides will see the light some day?
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 5:02 PM
Many view abortion as murder, so I doubt they will accept this logic.
I would be interested in reading any studies which show the correlation of a decline in murder with legalized abortions.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 5:08 PM
and so many people who are anti-abortion fail to see the facts that murder rates, at least, generally go down when abortion is legalized.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 5:02 PM
Futile,
If you legalize stabbing someone with a knife and no longer call it murder, I suppose you could say murder rates just went down.
How about explaining your statement, it makes little sense as written.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 5:14 PM
I do not think all felons should be banned from owning a gun nor lose the option to vote. Many paid the time and the past is the past. If one kills someone by running over with a car to the degree of a felony is he banned from owning a car when time is served? Maybe he should be forbidden a car and allowed a gun?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 10:10 PM
Well, Old John, never quite thought of it in that way but it does make a little sense. May I add that some people who have not YET killed someone with a car still ought to be forbidden from driving one.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 30, 2010, at 10:37 PM
Vulcan this is true. But if the utensils had not made Rosie O'donnel fat... she would still be a *****, only a skinney one.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jul 1, 2010, at 5:22 PM
futile ... "and so many people who are anti-abortion fail to see the facts that murder rates, at least, generally go down when abortion is legalized."
Do you mean because there are so many less people to commit murders, due to abortion having sort of kept the population down?
Old J. ... "I do not think all felons should be banned from owning a gun nor lose the option to vote. Many paid the time and the past is the past."
Don't know exactly how to explain my thinking, but ... Okay, they were punished ... however, some of their 'rights' as citizens are not given back, so ... even a prison sentence isn't actually the end of the 'punishment?'
Comes to mind when I used to punish the children ... once they'd 'served their sentence' (which was usually something like having to clip the weeds around the fence, weed the garden or clean out the rabbit hutch for their grandpa ... or for really major things giving up their allowance for a week) ... I considered the matter paid and closed.
Funny, vulcan!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jul 1, 2010, at 10:11 PM
After serving their sentence, all rights should be reinstated. That does not mean their rights should not be withheld during their incarceration. Once the penance has been absolved there is no need for further punishment. This should include felons who utilized a firearm during commission of a crime. Since the law does not deter criminal intent, it merely addresses what is acceptable and punitive damages, it can be assumed that the reformed offender has no preconceived aspirations toward further illegalities. If we take for granted that the reformed will aspire to further illegal activities, then the punishment was not severe enough and the penal system itself needs to be addressed.
-- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 12:03 AM
Deep thought ... and perhaps a legitimate one, about the punishment not being enough to deter a person from continuing to commit crimes after their sentence is satisfied.
A relative was arrested on drug charges almost two decades ago. He wasn't imprisoned (except initially), but put on probationary status. He fulfilled his two-year probation, went through the drug program, paid all his fines and expenses ...
Since then he worked hard to overcome this past act ... has a family, works harder than many ever would despite some serious health problems, has children in college, bought a nice home plus a rental house ...
He still cannot ever go deer hunting like he used to.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 12:27 AM
In some states, voting rights and gun rights are restored after one has served their time. In others, convicted felons can petition for their restoration. I'm not sure whether all states offer this.
Typically, it is my understanding, the time that must be served is the actual sentence, not just the time spent in prison. If one receives a twenty-year sentence, then they have to wait twenty years, even if they actually spend only seven of those years 'doing time'.
Federal crimes have different penalties, and different rules regarding restoration of rights after conviction. That is one more reason to limit the things over which the federal government has jurisdiction, IMHO.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 8:34 AM
Spaniard wrote:
Not entirely. Here's what Peacesecurity.suite101.com says:
Federal law provides significant penalties for felons in possession of weapons, unless the felon has his rights restored by the convicting state.
Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing "any firearm or ammunition." Specifically a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison.
There are many other federal gun ownership restrictions. For example, a conviction for a misdemeanor domestic battery results in a loss of gun rights. A person who is the subject of an order of protection may not possess a weapon. In light of the 2008 case of District of Colombia v. Heller, such restrictions may now have Second Amendment implications. A good summary is available from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides:
"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly [or implicitly as a matter of state law] provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."
State Law Restoration of Rights
State law determines the restoration of civil rights for a state conviction, not federal law. The civil rights restoration must incorporate the right to serve on a jury, the right to seek and hold public office, and the right to vote. Absent restoration of these rights federal recognition of the state restoration of rights exception will not apply.
Federal law contains another passage to be considered. If the restoring state includes the three rights above, then one must determine if state law in any way restricts the convicted felon's rights to possess a weapon. If there is any state restriction on the felon's right to have a weapon then the possession of any firearms by the convicted felon is federally illegal. This is true even if all other civil rights are restored.
In the end, federal restrictions on the possession of firearms by convicted felons are entirely dependent upon the restrictions imposed by the various states. If there is a state restriction on an individual's gun possession as the result of a criminal conviction, then possession is a violation of federal law.
The Process for Restoring Rights
Every state has its own process for felons to petition the government to restore their civil rights. Rights can be affected by the expunging or sealing of records which are judicial actions or pardons from the governor, which are executive actions. The level of restoration may be affected by the crime itself, whether it is a violent crime a drug crime or a crime of dishonesty. State laws vary greatly. For an example of the process, see Illinois Criminal Expungement Law."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 9:12 AM
Shapley Hunter,
Very good information and the BATFE Website is an excellent source. I had to keep track of all of this, but left all my legal opinions for my successor. The laws are only a part of the knowledge base as they change over time due to these court rulings and BATFE does a pretty good job of tracking and updating.
Many states have a provision for suspending imposition of a sentence in which case an individual will not have a criminal "conviction", but some laws do not rely only on the word conviction, but add "pled guilty", so the fact one pled guilty disqualifies one from owning a firearm. Since a person does not have a "conviction", there really is no recourse in Missouri as a Gubernatorial Pardon cannot be approved absent a conviction and additionally not all states recognize the absence of a conviction as a Kansas Appeals court upheld a conviction for illegal possession of a firearm by a former Missourian with an SIS.
"Restoration of Firearms Explosives Privileges" investigations through BATFE have not been funded for many years, so for the most part relief is only available through the states for non federal offenses.
Firearms laws can be pretty confusing.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 9:47 AM
Why_Not wrote:
"So are the elites above us and allowed to protect themselves while we are without?"
Yes. In their minds, at least. You may recall that Sen. Ted Kennedy's bodyguard was once arrested for possessing unregistered fully automatic weapons. Sen. Feinstein was carried a concealed weapon in California, while pressing for weapons bans. She carried the weapon for self defense, while pressing to prohibit ordinary citizens from having that freedom.
It's the 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 9:51 AM
Red_Rhino wrote:
"Firearms laws can be pretty confusing."
I don't that that is limited to 'firearms' laws... :)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 9:53 AM
Shapley Hunter,
Man that is the truth. I had to spend a lot of hours in dusty law libraries going over issues of statutes, West Law, VAMS etc. to even come close to keeping up. I can only think they are this way as a means of guaranteeing full employment for lawyers.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Jul 2, 2010, at 10:00 AM
So is it now unlawful for Chicago gun owners to step out of their houses with a fire arm? Are there existing gun shops that will close due to the city laws?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 3, 2010, at 5:32 AM
That's how I read it, Old J. Can't even take your gun into your own garage?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 3, 2010, at 2:26 PM
That is why I did not rejoice at the latest decision in McDonald as with Heller, it just left too many loopholes. This will be in litigation for years or until the SCOTUS issues a stronger opinion the next time.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sat, Jul 3, 2010, at 6:30 PM
Red_Rhino, I think some of the others reading your posts may join me in thanking you for all the information you convey.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 3, 2010, at 7:05 PM
I'll second that, Old J.!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jul 4, 2010, at 2:01 AM
All in favor say Aye...
Those opposed signify by Nay...
The Ayes have it!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 4, 2010, at 10:21 AM
Wheels, Still in Stoddard co? Should be some watermelons down around the bottem of the county or just below.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 4, 2010, at 5:37 PM
Old John,
No, back home since Wedneday. I was there for about 10 days. But I will be back there for another 10 days or so in a few weeks. Well before they run out of watermelons.
Speaking of watermelons, I had to make a sales call on a man over in Malden some 20 years ago, and he asked me to do him a favor and bring something along with me, which I did. Well he got called away and I talked to his Lieutenant, who, when we were finished with business, said the boss wants me to give you something.
He said, Mr. Tom wants you to have some watermelons, and I said thank you I would gladly take a couple.
I opened the hatchback on that RX7 (2 seater) I had chosen to drive since my wife was going along and that sucker proceeded over my protests to pile watermelons from the back of the seats to the hatchback door and all of the way to the roof. He said if those watermelons were still there when the boss got back he was in trouble.
I gave away water melons all of the way back home and still had more left than I could eat.
Businss could be fun, and I enjoyed a friendship with most of my customers. That clown and I had a lot of laughs over things like that.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 4, 2010, at 6:18 PM
Menu
I'll be curious to see how those who claim that issues such as a abortion are 'settled' because of Supreme Court decisions will react to this one. My gut tells me they won't consider this 'settled'...
Will there be a new 'litmus test' for nominees to the Supreme Court?
Replies (65)