[Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases

[Sunil Ramalingam]

What the panic mongers want to ignore is that the President does not have unlimited power.  It is a mistake to think that the Senate is going to rubber-stamp everything Obama wants, even if this is a high-priority goal for him.  Particularly in the  rural West, Dems have won Senate seats by being pro gun rights.  I doubt the Montana senators, for instance, will go along with curtailing gun rights.

As for other rights that have been winnowed down, I don't see outrage over the winnowing of the Fourth Amendment, for example.  That helps the accused, so why should anyone care, until they or a family member are charged with something.  Then its significance becomes clear, though it's a little late.

Here's something to think about.  Like other states, Idaho has 'Implied consent.'  That means if you drive on our roads, it's implied that you have already consented to providing a breath, alcohol, or urine sample if you are arrested for DUI.  

Someone in Southern Idaho got picked up, and taken to the hospital after refusing to provide a blood sample.  Officer gets a nurse to get a sample, while guy is lying handcuffed on a gurney.  (Our courts have said it's okay to get this sample by force, if the driver won't willingly provide it.)

Officer asks for a urine sample, which the driver refuses to provide.  Officer then orders the nurse to catheterize the driver for a sample, which is done.

I don't know what the courts are going to do with this, but I think this is crazy.

Sunil 

> From: areaman at moscow.com
> To: kmmos1 at verizon.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:22:05 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases
> 
> Ken says:
> ". . . Second Amendment privileges . . ."
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment is part of the
> "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Privileges".
> 
> And yes, there are some goobers out there who think something is going
> to keep them from owning or buying what they would like, for whatever
> reason they'd like, and it seems to have driven up prices not unlike oil
> speculation did over the summer.  I'm not entirely confident that Obama
> is going to leave things as they are (and in my opinion, as they should
> be), and I don't think we should look forward to some sort of challenge
> to the 2nd Amendment as Scott Dredge thinks we should have.
> 
> If you challenge one, which one is next?  Why not the rest?  Will they
> be stronger for it?
> 
> DC
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081110/80684885/attachment.html