Don't know what the movie looks like, I may go see it this weekend. Couldn't be better than this video, though.
John McClane Kicks Ass!"
"All 92 Supreme Court gun cases are listed here alphabetically, as answered questions, to help you find specific proceedings, and quickly grasp the gun-related elements of the case. Only the questions related to firearms or self defense are listed even if, as is often the case, the decision itself has a different focal point. Many other questions are indeed typically addressed in the cases and, because of the terseness of the questions below, you should rely on the full actual cases for an understanding of the significance of each one. Think of this index as a navigation tool, a memory jogger, and a good read."That describes the content and utility of the book, certainly, but it also describes the content of the link. The webpage lists all 92 Supreme Court cases alphabetically, by Name, Date and Citation. It also describes the legal questions addressed and a brief one-word (yes or no) answer to the question.
You can order this book directly from gunlaws.com or from Barnes&Nobel. The price is the same, but one assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the first vendor returns a greater percentage to the authors, because the Gunlaws website is directly associated with Alan Korwin's "Bloomfield Press".
• Indicates the 44 cases presented in their entirety in Supreme Court Gun Cases.
Ð Indicates the 14 self-defense cases.
Acers v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238
Key: Name; Date; Citation; Page in Supreme Court Gun Cases
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].
Adams v. Williams; 1972; 407 U.S. 143; 363
Can a peace officer conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons, if there is reason to believe a suspect is armed and dangerous [YES]; Are 4th Amendment guarantees violated by such a stop and frisk [NO].
Adamson v. California; 1947; 332 U.S. 46; 310
[The dissenting opinion in a 5th Amendment case argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, against the states].
Alberty v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].
Albright v. Oliver; 1994; 510 U.S. 266; 481
[The dissenting opinion in a case involving freedom from malicious prosecution cites the right to keep and bear arms as among fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution].
Allen v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 492; 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].
Malcolm describes the patterns of gun possession and violence, as well as changes in British culture due to war, food shortages, politics, and crime policy. She pays particular attention to changes in the culture of self-defense, both from the viewpoint of the Crown and of the subjects, and to how crime victims are treated by the government. Formerly, Britons happily contrasted their own permissive gun laws with the repressive laws on the Continent, and considered liberal British laws to exemplify the superior and free character of the British nation. But today, British gun controls are the most severe in the western world.(Emphasis added)
Pratt told WND, "the power that has enabled ATF to take away people's licenses to do business" continues unabated.
The agency holds, he said, a "continuing animas against gun owners and dealers."
.............. I also feel some kind of double measuring within IPSC sometimes.
One time someone claims that IPSC is a sport, and therefore eg. the Classic is introduced as a "not-that-humanoid shaped target", or PC target if you wish. At the same time, he announces that he has asked several Law Enforcement organizations, and they agreed that the "Classic" fits better for their needs (by being smaller, i.e. more challenging, and by more or less forming the shape of the chest of a man, too).
Then at another time the very same person (or another official of IPSC) claims that IPSC is a practical sport, and therefore the mere "fun targets" should be exiled, only the practical ones should remain.
Some rule suggestions, although would increase the fun of the game, are discarded because the are "not practical". At the same time, some other rules are introduced "to emphasize that IPSC is a sport". I guess it's not just me who sense some disturbance here.
This Texas Star, for example, is not a practical target in the sense that no Bad Guy, or a bunch of Bad Guys behave as that target does.
However, as far as I see, IPSC should be "practical" in the sense that it should teach us to control the gun under pressure, and to use it effectively against both static and moving targets. Partially for political reasons, IPSC should avoid using realistic scenarios for that.
And why should it be realistic? As long as it reaches its main goal, and teaches us to effectively neutralize both static and moving targets by using our handguns under pressure, what does it matter whether we shoot at humanoid robots or funny-shaped UFO imitations?
I can't rid of the feeling that most everybody uses the word "practical" as his own interest at the moment dictates. Including many of this very list, and many of the officials or representatives of IPSC.
Tuesday: Report at 8AM RO meeting-the usual. Then setup your stage (put up targets look it over, etc.). PM RO match 6 stages. Used the ones that had activators so they would be tested. Stage 10 Shoot Out –“*&^$#@&”
Wednesday: AM shooters allowed on the range (they were not allowed on the range Tuesday) PM run six squads finished about 6:30. Went out to dinner with George and Brian Jones and Aldo Gonzalez. Nice visit. Brian was 3rd Master for the match and George was 5th Super Senior.
Thursday: Ran 12 squads-had to eat at stage-ran about an hour behind schedule by end of day. Two Big Macs and 3 beers for dinner then to bed.
Friday: Ran 12 squads-had to eat at stage again-ran about 20-30 minutes by end of day. Friday night staff appreciation (2 knives this year).
Saturday: Ran 6 squads finished about 30 min late. Lunch, vendor tent (small this year) go to hotel, drink beer go to bed early.
Sunday: woke up early left at 5:45
time 9 hour drive home. Missoula
We had two stages in our bay and we ran them in tandem. After Wednesday we had a system that worked well. Two stages to a bay may be the reason for getting behind each day. We were the first stage in the bay so we would pass a squad on to the next stage and they would often start before we had the squad from the stage before us. The stage next to us would then pause when our shooters arrived so we could do our walk thru. After that we would work in tandem again. This seemed to slow down the whole process.The range is great, the scenery is beautiful and the match was the best run major I have ever worked at. I had two RO’s who were fantastic-Bruce Bethell from
Arkansasand Julie Williams from .It was my second as a CRO and I feel like it was a great Nationals from my perspective. Wisconsin
Note: If I've left anyone out who should be included here, I apologize. Please send corrections to me at the email address listed at the bottom of this page.