N.Y. mayor may have day in S.C. court
Circuit judge rules pawnshop owner can sue over gun sting
By Glenn Smith
Circuit judge rules pawnshop owner can sue over gun sting
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg soon could find himself in a Berkeley County courtroom defending his decision to brand a Summerville pawnshop "a rogue gun dealer" that contributed to Big Apple violence.
Circuit Judge Roger Young ruled Monday that Larry Mickalis of Mickalis Pawn Shop can sue the mayor and New York City in S.C. courts for slander, fraud, conspiracy and emotional distress.
Mickalis alleges that the mayor and his representatives damaged his business and reputation by trying to falsely paint him as a nuisance gun dealer involved in illegal weapon sales.
Mickalis' lawyers, Justin Kahn and Carl Pierce, called Young's ruling a huge victory in their effort to clear Mickalis' name. They hope to travel to New York within 45 days to take depositions from Bloomberg and others involved in the case, they said.
"We're extremely pleased that Michael Bloomberg and the city of New York are going to have to account for their actions in front of a jury in South Carolina," Kahn said. "They have not shown us any evidence that Mr. Mickalis was involved in anything. They just engaged in a PR campaign that basically destroyed his good name."
Mickalis was one of 15 gun store owners across the country that Bloomberg sued in May 2006 for allegedly allowing guns to be sold illegally, contributing to violence on New York's streets. No fewer than 49 guns sold at Mickalis' shop were used in New York City crimes between 1994 and
2001, Bloomberg's federal lawsuit contends.
Mickalis denied breaking the law and filed a fraud and defamation suit against Bloomberg, the city of New York and various investigators working on the city's behalf. Mickalis contends that New York did shoddy undercover work in trying to prove he didn't follow gun-sale requirements.
Connie Pankratz, deputy communications director for the New York City law department, said Monday that a federal judge already has found that the city has demonstrated its claims against the gun dealers "with a high degree of probability."
"We look forward to presenting these facts in court," she said.
The city's lawyers tried to quickly torpedo Mickalis' lawsuit, arguing various issues of procedure, jurisdiction and immunity. Among other things, they argued that Mickalis failed to follow New York's municipal procedures for filing legal claims. They also contended that Bloomberg couldn't be sued as an individual in South Carolina because he was acting in his official capacity.
In a 36-page decision, Young brushed aside those arguments. He determined that Bloomberg and the city went after South Carolinians on their home turf and cannot now try to hide behind New York's municipal filing laws to shake off a lawsuit.
Young also ruled that Bloomberg could be sued as an individual because his alleged actions appear beyond the scope of his office. The defendants provided nothing to show that the mayor of New York has the power or authority to conduct civilian sting operations against federally licensed firearms dealers in South Carolina, the judge said.
Reach Glenn Smith at 937-5556 or gsmith@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
My sincere best wishes for success to Justin Kahn and Carl Pierce in this case of slander, fraud, conspiracy and emotional distress against public officials. I would love to know how this case comes out.
November 20, 2007 at 3:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Another Yankee with diarrhea of the mouth. . .
November 20, 2007 at 5:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mggoose2000 (anonymous) says...
Mikalis has to follow the rules or he would be behind bars for violating federal gun sale laws.
If the person presents proper ID and the background check that Bloomberg's Demoratic President and fellow "gun control nuts" insisted on making into law revealed no probable cause to deny them the purchase; how is Mr. Mikalis guilty of illegal gun sales?
This is just another case of the "Blame Game".
When the idiots that call themselves "leaders" figure it out, it'll be to damn late. If they allowed citizens their right to defend themselves by possessing a weapon, legally, and issued a "right to carry permit" to those that qualified, then the criminals would pack up and move somewhere else.
These people that are buying these guns and then selling them to street thugs are criminals and when they are caught, punish them and quit putting the blame on someone trying to make a buck.
Remember, "Guns cause violence like flies cause garbage".
November 20, 2007 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beespencer (anonymous) says...
Isn't Bloomberg a Republican?
November 20, 2007 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Bloomberg is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Don't worry he's a liberal.
November 20, 2007 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Not only southerners but they want to the disarm the entire country.
They're also anti-defense and anti-military.
November 20, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Huffman...voting for a third party is like throwing your vote away. It's better to push the issue through your party.
November 20, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
you are right diamondhead. everyone knows the two party system works very well. for evidence look at all the progressive action initiated in washington dc over the past (insert years here).
Mr. Huffman, vote Paul and your prayers will be answered.
November 20, 2007 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
The problem isn't "Yankees" or "liberals." The problem is one man with an agenda. Hoffman, how can you be a libertarian and still think the government has the right to tell people not to use drugs. If you want the government out of your wallet and your gun cabinet, then you should also want to stop them from telling people what they can consume.
November 20, 2007 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Bloomberg hates America and everything it stands for....funny thing is, America is why he's a billionaire. Everything this idiot says really makes you wonder about the people who voted for him.
November 20, 2007 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
desspec (anonymous) says...
Maybe Bloomberg should sue the people Mickalis bought them from, or the manufacturers of the weapons, or the steel companies who provided the steel, or the owners of the property from where the ore was mined, or our very government for allowing ownership of guns ... anyone and everyone except those who are really responsible; the human debris who commit the crimes!
November 20, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greener1 (anonymous) says...
IF anyone on here is EDUCATED, then you will know that NO ONE has EVER won a slander case! You can sue for it, but it's pointless. Get educated people, especially you P&C, didn't you take a Media Law course in college?
November 20, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Scvoter:Disarming American is part of the liberal agenda. We can start naming almost every liberal democrat in congress and a few RINOs.
November 20, 2007 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Greener1 wrote, "IF anyone on here is EDUCATED, then you will know that NO ONE has EVER won a slander case! You can sue for it, but it's pointless. Get educated people, especially you P&C, didn't you take a Media Law course in college?"
I don't know what they taught you in Media Law in college, but in law school you learn that it certainly is possible to prevail in a slander suit. Even a cursory review of reported cases demonstrates that conclusively. Check out any of several websites that allow you to conduct searches of published opinions of the South Carolina courts for free.
November 20, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MHA (anonymous) says...
greener1, many slander cases have been won. It took me about 5 seconds to find this one on the net:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/upc...
You can now thank me for EDUCATING you.
Back to the article, the NYC mayor's comments aren't going to affect the pawnshop's business at all. If anything, the notoriety will increase his business. While I agree he ought to be pissed off at the mayor, the lawsuit is not needed. It's frivolous and waste of time and money. NYC tax payer money in this case, but money just the same. Remember, sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me...
Does McDonalds sue when the media says they are responsible for making people fat? No...
November 20, 2007 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brant (anonymous) says...
It's always funny to me that the right-wingers are always the ones who resort to childish name-calling. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is branded "liberal". How childish! If you want any type of controls on firearms, you're automatically an unamerican liberal commie, or some such denegrating name. If you don't believe in their religion, that is to say the Established State Religion, you're a commie, heathen liberal.
Now, they can call me names to their little heart's content. I don't care. They can spew their ignorant venom about me and people like me all they want. What good does it do, huh? Personally, it makes me laugh. Diamondhead claims that "disarming American is part of the Liberal agenda". Ok, here's you chance. Prove it! Show where you picked up a copy of this alleged agenda. It's gotta be in print, right? Mine must've gotten lost in the mail.
November 20, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
well maybe you arent "liberal". maybe you just forgot the 2nd amendment.
November 20, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Brant:
Try looking on the Democratic National Committee website. Here is the quote:
"Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole"
I also think that the democrats individual actions consistantly display this agenda, such as a total ban on gun ownership in DC, and other major cities where the liberals have complete control.
November 20, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mggoose2000 (anonymous) says...
Brant,
The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe; take your pick, all of these rags have written numerous prose about the gun control issue and the proponents that want to outlaw guns. Kennedy, Pelosi, Hilary, her degenerate husband, Brady, Feinstein, Schumer; the list goes on and on!
Your brain got lost in the mail!
November 20, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
By the way, an earlier post was correct about Giuliani. He is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He is for homosexual marriage, for gun control and is ardently pro-abortion (in other words he opposes everything that is right and good). He is NO better than Rodham-Clinton and Hussein Obama.
November 20, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeffyoung007 (anonymous) says...
I would gladly contribute to a Mickalis Pawn Shop legal defense fund pertaining to the case in which Mickalis is the defendant.
November 20, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Brant - You use the term "name-calling" in reference to calling someone a liberal. Does this mean you consider the term "liberal" to be an insult? BTW, if you want to call me a "conservative" that's fine with me. I promise not to cry.
November 20, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
I plan on voting for Giuliani!!! In my opinion there's nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, Gun control IS NEEDED, and he's not Pro-Abortion he's PRO-CHOICE. All of these things, to me, are great reasons to vote for this man.
November 20, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Brant:.
I can present all the facts and evidence but it would be a waste of time for a liberal like you. I'm not here to change your opinion or believe system, that will be up to you :not me. You can go ahead and do your own research.
November 20, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Hey_U_Guys:
You must be one of those liberals who are ruining this great country. . .
Murdering a baby before he or she is born is not choice. You have the choice not to get pregnant in the first place, after that, it is cold blooded murder. Hitler and Stalin didn't have as much blood on their hands as the abortionist in this country. What they are doing is nothing less than wholesale murder.
And gun control is the first thing fascists do when they take power. Look at Hitler and Stalin, that was one of the first things they did. If you believe in these things, looks like you have alot in common with these types of people.
November 20, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
You're not going to sway my views simply because you don't agree, and want to sit here and spout off names of people who tried to commit genocide. I'm not out having secret meetings with my followers, planning the massacre of a specific group of people.
On to abortion: Rapings is one major reason women have abortions. Some couples decide for abortions if they're told their baby will be severely sick and most likely die soon after birth. Yeah, there are people that CHOOSE to get an abortion because they don't want children and got pregnant. But, to me, that is better than them having the child and throwing them in a lake or leaving them in a dumpster to die. Regardless of their decision, it is indeed THEIR decision.
I'm not going to sit here and crap on what you believe in or call you names. I certainly am not the type of person to compare you to the types of people you compared me to.
November 20, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eaw429 (anonymous) says...
On abortion--
One of the main reasons it became legal is because it was an illegal underground operation. Many women were dying from these hacks performing this operation. In the meantime, wealthy women and daughters of politicians were getting knocked up and "taking care" of the situation in a sterile, safe medical environment.
November 20, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
I'm not calling names. I'm pointing out facts. One of the biggest lies told by the abortion industry is that abortions are about rape and deformed babies. That is simply not true. The truth is that almost all abortions are done for convenience sake. Very few are performed for the reasons you stated.
Getting back to gun control (which by the way was the main point) only fascists believe in gun control. Take away the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and take away the ability to defend ones country from tyrants is the first steps to fascism.
November 20, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Many women are dying from legal abortions. Abortion is no safer than it was before '73. Remember, when a woman enters an abortion clinic, at least on persons life ends (and sometimes two). Botched abortions are still happening in larger numbers than is commonly believed.
November 20, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
According to Dictionary.com:
**lib*er*al /Ë lÉbÉrÉl, Ë lÉbrÉl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Boy, those liberals are realy screwing things up with their free thinking.
What were people using to protect themselves BEFORE guns/gunpowder were invented? Surely you can't tell me that people can only protect themselves and their families with guns. There are too many guns in this country being used for agendas other than protection.(ex. murders, robberies, etc...) But hey, that's ok, they have the right to own those guns.
November 20, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
According to Dictionary.com:
**fas*cist /Ë fÃ:Ê Ést/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun 1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
**fas*cism /Ë fÃ:Ê ÉzÉm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 192243.
How many other "Liberal Fascists: are out there? I know I can't be the only one....lol
Oh btw,
gun control
n. Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.
November 20, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
On the "fascist" statement....Would you consider Great Britain a fascist country? The don't hand guns or assault weapons of any sort. I am a gun owner, and I will always fight for the right to bear arms, but I will do it with better logic than that. We will always have the right to bear arms in this country, but that doesn't mean I should be able to own a bazooka or a freakin 50 cal machine gun. Gun control does not mean no guns.
Ok, so abortion is murder....so what. We chose to kill people all the time because society sees them as inconvenient. Look at the tax dollars saved by not having to raise the kids that others don't want. I don't see how you can be fiscally conservative and not think abortion should be legal. If you stop abortion...get your social programs ready. I hope the State is ready to start raising babies.
November 20, 2007 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fire_Inspector (anonymous) says...
SCVOTER has it right.
I am a gun owner of 5 Firearms and hold a concealed weapons permit here in SC.
And I have NEVER committed a gun related crime. Or been arrested. Or voted Republican.
The problem is the Republican Fascists in power now have cleverly managed to turn "conservative" into a positive and "liberal" into a libel. When conservative is just "resistant to change."
WAKE UP. Clinton got a BJ and Bush has managed to get over 3000 AMERICANS killed in Iraq for no reason. And the conservatives still think Clinton should have been impeached? At least Gore never shot anyone in the face.
And HECK NO, Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. That would be Afghanistan (sheltering Al Q and Bin Laden) and Saudi Arabia (supporting Al Q with money and where the 9/11 attackers came from).
But Bush couldn't attack Saudi Arabia. Awkward questions (and answers) would have been asked about his daddy, Carlisle Group and where all Dubyas money came from...
November 20, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a 50 cal. :)
November 20, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
Yeah, but would you want your enemy to have one? (i.e. that neighbor you pissed off last week)
November 20, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greener1 (anonymous) says...
HEY READER, if you can find me a case that someone one a SLANDER suit, i'll gladly mail you a check for $100! No bs!!!
November 20, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greener1 (anonymous) says...
people, people, IT'S SLANDER, SLANDER IS SPOKEN, LIABLE IS WRITTEN, which is what you celebs won on, you guys are idiots.
I can say what I want about you, it's my opinion, if I write, new ballgame, then defamation may come into play.
November 20, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greener1 (anonymous) says...
MHA, god try try dumbass, they settled out of court. MORON
November 20, 2007 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Fascists believe:
#1) The federal government should run everything
#2) Private citizens should not be allowed to own guns
#3) All public expression of religion (any religion) is banned
Hope this puts an end to the bizarre term "right wing fascist"
November 20, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
SCVOTER:
Sure, it's called "Mutually Assured Destruction". As long as we are both heavily armed, neighbors become VERY polite to one another! :)
November 20, 2007 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
est8esq (anonymous) says...
Greener, relax my interweb friend. Slander and libel both fall under the general category of defamation. You are correct, libel is written. However, slander is not just spoken, it can be implied from conduct (i.e. being stopped and searched by a store worker in front of a bunch of people when you did nothing wrong - it was defamatory even though no words were spoken and the insinuation of wrongdoing could be actionable if you can prove it damaged your character and was either negligent or malicious). You are also right in alluding to the fact that libel is the most common form of a defamation suit. It's easier to prove damages and liability for false and misleading statements when they appear in a writing. However, many cases involving slander have also been won, and will continue to be won. It's just generally harder to prove, and the damages aspect can be difficult as well. However, these types of cases go through court all of the time. It's usually difficult to name a specific case because these are usually simple torts decided at the trial level in unreported Orders for amounts not worth pursuing on appeal. Usually these types of actions fall under the catch-all of defamation, and dispositions are made solely on the facts of whether a defamatory action occurred (that wasn't protected by privilege) which damaged someone - usually without the necessity of launching into the legal distinctions/fiction between libel/slander that you really only see in first year law school tort classes, and apparently some undergrad communications classes. There are actually a lot of recent reported appellate level cases in SC alone that deal extensively with verbal/implied defamation by an agent or employer which damaged the principal or employee.
If nobody ever won, then coverage of such a cause of action wouldn't consume so many legal textbooks, lawschool discussions and exams, or continue to wade through courts in one pleading after another. Trust me, people win those things. So, this Bloomberg situation could get interesting. I'd LOVE to see him get on the stand in front of a Berkeley County jury and get a taste of some of that good old home cooking. I ain't talking about food...
November 20, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
SJMEHLHOSE
"Another Yankee with diarrhea of the mouth. . ."
Umm, although a transplant from below the Mason-Dixon, you'd probably call me one! However, I do believe from Washington, DC further north there is a real problem with hoof and mouth disease. :)
GREENER1
"IF anyone on here is EDUCATED, then you will know that NO ONE has EVER won a slander case! . . . "
It is very difficult to prove monetary damages from 'slander/libel', one of the required elements.
EST8ESQ -
finally! a lawyer in the bunch and/or a well-researched response!
You know what was good about all the comments? Everyone rallied 'round the flag pole! No one can ever accuse SC people of being lukewarm!
November 20, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
robert8096 (anonymous) says...
I think I'll go by and buy a gun from him. I purchased one from him when the first lawsuit hit the papers and got to talk to him directly about it. Now I will go get a second one to help support his cause.
November 20, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
i think some people forget we have a constitution. maybe some of you should read it. the federal govt has no right to limit the purchase of firearms.
what if our govt fails and we are invaded? i hope i have a 50 cal machine gun.
why shouldnt you be allowed to own a bazooka? oh yea bc if someone uses one, all the gun controlling loonies would blame the govt for allowing them instead of blaming the idiot that actually used it.
November 20, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Just because it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Doesn't mean the government can't REGULATE.
November 20, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
"In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon"
November 20, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
what do you think regulation is? regulation is an infringement of ones right to keep and bear arms.
November 20, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wegwam (anonymous) says...
amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
so there it is. it comes down to the states or the voters.
once again the federal govt has no right to limit the purchase of firearms.
is a nuclear bomb considered a firearm ? im not 100% but i think its a bomb
well lets hope they never invent the nuclear ray gun
November 20, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
so, let the people vote on it.
November 20, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MHA (anonymous) says...
Hey greener1, not that you would ever admit to being wrong, as that would prevent you from hiding behind your keyboard and throwing immature insults at everyone, but... you are wrong :)
"A civil jury awarded two Tulsa women $340,000 Friday night in a slander lawsuit involving a minister at the local First United Pentecostal Church who told his congregation in a worship service that the women were having a lesbian affair.
The 9-3 verdict came at 10:15 p.m. after four hours of deliberation."
Jury Verdict does not equal an out of court settlement. Again, I'll allow you to thank me for educating you. I'll skip the name calling as I'm not one of those people that get all rough and tough when hiding behind my keyboard :)
November 20, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
Regarding the comments accusing liberals of being facists:
I hate to defend liberals, because I believe in the right to bear arms, and I hate abortion. Fascism is a dictatorship characterized by nationalism, militarism, and racism. I have to say, republicans are more nationalistic, militaristic, and more racist.
November 20, 2007 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JackDRipper (anonymous) says...
sjmehlhose wrote: "Hitler and Stalin didn't have as much blood on their hands as the abortionist in this country."
It's hard to fathom how someone could make a statement like this.
November 20, 2007 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Hey_you_guys: Where did you find that liberal dictionary?
Try this for size.
The ACLU the legal arm of liberalism was founded by Roger Baldwin and William Foster in the early 1920s. Roger Baldwin was a socialist and William Foster was the presidential candidate for the Communist Party in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg appointed to the Supreme Court by Bill Clintoon was also the chief counsel for the ACLU.
I have to admit, I got a real big laugh on a lot of those line items especially number 7.
November 20, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Hey_You_Guys
Liberals are great for doing end runs. California the Mecca for liberalism has over 65 pages of laws regulating guns. Alabama on the other hand, I think have only 2 pages. Liberals like to limit your rights to self defense with layers upon layers of laws to a point where only a few will have that right. In San Francisco only 11 people have a conceal weapons permit and one of them is Senator Dianne Feinstein The Supreme Court will be reviewing the second amendment this month and with 3 conservatives judges, 4 liberals and 2 that can go either way we'll soon know one way or another. I wonder how Comrade Ruth Bader Ginsberg will vote?
November 20, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
Brant, I am on your side, Republican are the most hostile and most rude people they are; they love talking about being a patriot and loud talking everyone who doesn't share their view. Most have never served in any military branch, but are the first to put others in harms way. WOW, real Patriots; just all talk and wearing of the US Flag lapel button. The only people that need assualt weapons are the military and law enforcement. No-one is saying you cannot own a weapon, just not assault weapons; look at most of the recent school shooting, that's right, assualt weapon's.
November 20, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dianed43 (anonymous) says...
SHUT 'EM DOWN!!!!!
November 20, 2007 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
Holy WOW!
All these posts over a personal lawsuit. I am happy to note that even most of the libs support an individual right to keep firearms. I worry about y'all sometimes.
November 20, 2007 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Madd dog 2020...
We're not talking about a need, we're talking about a right. I realize cosmetically the assault weapons are very scary looking to you liberals, but the rate of fire of these semi-automatic rifles are the same as any semi-automatic pistols or semi-automatic hunting rifles. As far as these weapons being used in the commission of a crime they only represent less than 2% of the crimes committed in this country. Remember it is the bad guys that are using guns , but I don't think you liberals are concern about bad guys. The bad guys are republicans and conservatives who disagree with your agenda. Am I right?
November 20, 2007 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
rollo.....
quote: I am happy to note that even most of the libs support an individual right to keep firearms.?????
We'll soon find out what the liberal supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will decide on our second amendment rights. Who knows I might be shock, but I doubt it.
November 20, 2007 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Greener1 wrote, "HEY READER, if you can find me a case that someone [won] a SLANDER suit, i'll gladly mail you a check for $100! No bs!!!"
It took all of about three minutes to locate one, but start with a read of Goodwin v. Kennedy, 347 S.C. 30 (2001). In that case, an African-American high school assistant principal sued an African-American minister for slander because of two instances in which the defendant referred to the assistant principal as "house n----r" in connection with his role in discipline of African-American student. The jury awarded the plaintiff actual damages of $5,000 and punitive damages of $25,000. The outcome was upheld on appeal.
You can make a contribution to the Nature Conservancy in my name.
November 20, 2007 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
I am not a liberal nor a conservative, I am for right and wrong and justice for all; which I can say is more than Republicans are for. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it correct. For instance, we all have the right to freedom of speech, but on some topic I have read, especially in the last month or so, pure hate has been written. Because we have the 1st amendment, should it be used too bash or embarrass another ethnic group? The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of values. How can this be when I heard some male Republican's talking about beating-up female politicians; hitting them in their big mouth, is this like putting them in their place? Like I said in my earlier post, some Republicans are the most hostile and rudest people you can ever meet.
November 21, 2007 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Madd dog:.Anyone who comes on a forum like this and gives an opinion is either right or left in their thinking. Your opinions or thoughts comes from somewhere and to prove my point here is your quote:
Brant, I am on your side, Republican are the most hostile and most rude people they are; they love talking about being a patriot and loud talking everyone who doesn't share their view. Most have never served in any military branch, but are the first to put others in harms way. WOW, real Patriots; just all talk and wearing of the US Flag lapel button.
Obviously, your opinions about republicans and conservatives are bias and are somewhere on the liberal side of the aisle. I don't have a problem with that, what I do have a problem with is that you're not being honest.
November 21, 2007 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MHA (anonymous) says...
I'm not right or left in my thinking. I view each circumstance on it's own and make up my mind based on that circumstance, not on any political agenda. I will agree that the majority of my opinions tend to be what is refered to as "conservative".
November 21, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
I don't have a problem with liberals, I don't dislike them, I think their ideas are wrong and if we had less of a federal government and more states rights then I think we can have better country. Liberals can go to states that are liberal and conservatives can go to states that are conservative. The problem with that idea, liberals can not live without conservatives for the simple reason, somebody's got to work and pay for all these social programs. Liberals love spending other people's money except their own.
November 21, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kaylee (anonymous) says...
If a female needs an abortion for reasons of rape, unhealthy child, or the womans life is in danger. Her doctor will send her to the hospital to have this done. Not a butcher clinic.
November 21, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
That remark prove my point, I can agree with the liberals on some points, and with the conservatives on other; I don't live in a box, like I said before, I am on the side of right and wrong, and justice for all. I do believe that you should review your comment. Over the last five plus years, this government has spent more money or wasted spending on so much crap. I also believe that everyone pays taxes, that's employed, not just the conservatives; which is the biggest sell job there is. Look at other countries, they have social programs that benefits the less; I think it's the Christian thing to do, to help your fellow man. I don't believe you can call yourself a person of God and remain self-centered; this was not in the teaching of Jesus Christ. So yes, I am being honest, just view life different than some liberal view and conservative views; I have my own. I spent 23 years in the military, traveled the world seeing the less fortunate and helping them, but it hurt me too see all the less fortunate living in the US. It's not a liberal or conservative thing; it's a humanity thing. So forgive me for caring too much.
November 21, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Madd Dog:so you're one of those middle of the road type guys? I have no problem with that but you paint with a wide brush.
I came to South Carolina from California to make my last stand against liberalism. I love California, it's a beautiful state and I have a lot friends there but the state is out of control. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union. It didn't have a moral ground to secede but it did have a constitutional right to do so. The great divide in this country is beyond repair and secession between liberal states and conservative states might be the only answer. Our founding fathers never envision our federal government to have far reaching powers as it does today. Self rule was the concept that our founding fathers had in mind and that rule was base on the local and state level, not the elite in Washington DC. If liberals want socialize medicine, no guns, 2 mommies and 2 daddies as an ideal family, no Christianity, no religion, no death penalty, abortion, more government control over property, socialized industry, no hunting or fishing, no SUVs, no nuclear power plants, ect:then they should move to liberal states.
Again, I don't have a problem with liberals whether you admit to it or not I really don't care. I just don't want to live under liberalism.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
November 21, 2007 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
Probably the best thing to do is get your start in a blue state, then move to a red state to hold on to your money, which is what many of the "conservatives" on this page did.
November 21, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MHA (anonymous) says...
California would be an AWESOME place to live... if they made everyone that lives there now move :)
November 21, 2007 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
MHA....
Quote: California would be an AWESOME place to live... if they made everyone that lives there now move :)????
Let me guess, you're a liberal..
November 21, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Misfit...
Is there something wrong with keeping the money you work for? Or are you one of those guys that wants to share the wealth?
November 21, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
I am simply suggesting that it is easier to start out in the blue state, due to public school support and legislation benefitting workers. And it is easier to hold on to your money in the red state due to lower income taxes, lower property taxes, and lower cost of labor.
It depends on your place in life as to where you are better off. Sometimes, I wish I had done it the other way around.
It does seem like maybe the people who benefitted from the good schools in a blue state and then left, owe something to the blue state.
November 21, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Misfit:
I see what you're saying but your perception is wrong. I had no extra benefits from public schools or anything like that. This blue state, red state thing is designated just to see how people had voted and how the demographics have changed over time. People move to where opportunities exist. I've lived in California for close to 30 years and when I first moved there it was expensive to live there compare to where I came from. I worked 2 jobs for the first 5 years, made some wise investments and over time they paid off. I would much rather have live out my retirement in California but it's not the same place it was 30 years ago nor would I have the same standard of living. There are more people leaving California than moving in with the exception of the invasion from south of the border.
If I stay in the blue state where I was raised, I would be poor. My brother pays $6800 per year in property taxes on a house with a market value of $200,000. On top of that he has to pay state income tax and a sales tax much higher than South Carolina. His hourly wage is about 22/hour. These blue states are not utopias.
November 21, 2007 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wingatejt (anonymous) says...
I for one am very pleased with the way this whole thing is shaping up. I hope that Mr. Mickalis burns bloomberg in court. And I hope that bloomberg has to pay dearly for all of the trouble he has caused that man.
November 23, 2007 at 1:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
