James Hardy

[Tipster19]

Wow! What a thread! Look, I don't have the time nor patience to read a 21 page thread but let me say this. I'm not defending Hardy one bit, truth be told I think that this kid has ALOT of issues but until ALL the facts are revealed I'm going to with hold an opinion and even then who's to say how accurate it really is. I think between his childhood, cultural background and the state of our society we are in for some real sticky times with this kid. It doesn't help that he is forever linked to a harden criminal for a father. I believe that Buffalo took a great risk in taking this kid who apparently has alot of baggage. Having said that I also believe that he is still capable of turning himself, his situation and lifestyle around under the right circumstances.

 

Take solace in the fact that players like PacMan Jones, Michael Vick and others have had numerous transgressions before the hammer came down on them. What the Bills/teammates should concentrate on is influencing Hardy in a positive way and surrounding him with the proper people. I think that Hardy's potential downfall is and can be his family. I was thinking about how Trent Edwards has had his sister helping him make the adjustment easier for him but I don't think that this is an option for Hardy unfortunately. I think that the little I know about Marshawn Lynch is that this might be the consumate teammate for Hardy. Lynch's greatest contribution to this team just might be that he can identify and communicate with Hardy in a way that will be welcomed and received. If not or if no one else can reach out and touch this kid then forget about the Bills, this young man just might self destruct all together.

[Grouse89]

I don't know where you're going to Law School but the Decision of (U.S. v Miller) was ambiguous at best.

 

The key paragraph in the decision:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158"

 

I love how stating that the Second Amendment not guaranteeing the right to keep and bear a "shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches in length" because of judicial notice that it isn't ordinary military equipment or be used in the common defense" has been extrapolated by anti-gun weenies into something incredibly more. That paragraph meets both the Standard Model and the State's Rights "theory".

 

If you're being taught different, then I feel sorry for you. There are more than 35 different Supreme Court instances where the justices have cited the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Including six by the Rehnquist court. The only current judge who hasn't issued or joined an opinion on the 2nd Amendment as a distinctively individual right is Breyer (among those who've issued an opinion).

 

Since you're on your way to being a lawyer, perhaps you can tell me which of the other Amendments in the original Bill of Rights weren't for the individual. Be specific.

next thing is he will be saying women don't have the right to vote, it's up for the states to decide or something. I mean I agree with you, according to my schooling the Bill of Rights protects individual's rights but I guess we are wrong....

[VOR]

If Hardy's father weren't a deadbeat, drug-dealing (likely) gold-digger, I'd probably be mortified at what Junior did. That is, assuming he ever DID pull out a gun +/- pointed it at his father.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Doesn't seem like anyone is willing to step up to the plate and have a discussion with you.

 

Maybe they are all over at this site.

 

 

It doesn't seem like the site is completed? Most of the links don't work. Perhaps the creator wore one of the "guns are for cowards" shirts and attracted a criminal to an easy mark. I'm all for anti-gun advocates advertising the fact that they do not believe in defending themselves with a firearm. I think anyone who speaks out against gun rights should have the guts to put a sign in front of their house or on their shirt indicating that a criminal will not be shot if they attack. Hillary, Kennedy, Obama, etc should all refuse armed protection since they don't believe an individual has the need to be protected by a firearm. Let them call the cops to clean up the bodies like the saps that they are attempting to disarm.

[HeHateMe78]

I don't know where you're going to Law School but the Decision of (U.S. v Miller) was ambiguous at best.

 

The key paragraph in the decision:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158"

 

I love how stating that the Second Amendment not guaranteeing the right to keep and bear a "shotgun with a barrell less than 18 inches in length" because of judicial notice that it isn't ordinary military equipment or be used in the common defense" has been extrapolated by anti-gun weenies into something incredibly more. That paragraph meets both the Standard Model and the State's Rights "theory".

 

If you're being taught different, then I feel sorry for you. There are more than 35 different Supreme Court instances where the justices have cited the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Including six by the Rehnquist court. The only current judge who hasn't issued or joined an opinion on the 2nd Amendment as a distinctively individual right is Breyer (among those who've issued an opinion).

 

Since you're on your way to being a lawyer, perhaps you can tell me which of the other Amendments in the original Bill of Rights weren't for the individual. Be specific.

 

Once again, until they conclude on D.C. v. Heller, there is no constitutional individual right. I argued for an individual right in my paper and I'm well aware where the current justices stand on that interpretation. Your presumption that I am againist guns is about as flawed as the notion that we do have an individual right as of today consistent w/ the constitution. If The 2nd gave an individual fundamental right then all those case you alluded to would have to pass the strict scrutiny test not the rational basis test, you dunce!

[SectionC3]

Not sure I would pass anything if you were grading it w/ all your constitutional knowledge. The constitution does not give an individual right but each State has the oppurtunity to allow people to keep and bear arms or not; hence, "lots of people own guns and it's legal." By no stretch is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right. However, the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case on the 2nd amendment rights and perhaps might overturn their previous intrepratation.

However, until that day,the previous ruling stands in U.S. v. Miller that their is no individual right merely a collective.

 

 

"Its" and "interpretation" are my words of the day. Not that anyone should be busting your *ss given that it IS exam time in law school. (Which begs the question: why are you fooling around on twobillsdrive? But, I digress . . . . ) From one young punk hustling a paycheck in the legal system to another hoping to do the same, my advice is to take it easy on dispensing the legal knowledge for a couple of years. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. I did the law review, high honors, published, clerkship thing and and sometimes wonder how I faked my way through it (and continue to fake my way through it five years later). The lesson I learned (more often than not the hard way) was to keep my mouth shut unless absolutely necessary.

[IDBillzFan]

The lesson I learned (more often than not the hard way) was to keep my mouth shut unless absolutely necessary.

That is some simple, yet terrific advice.

[Trader]

Acutally, The 2nd amendment has been construed to bestow upon citzens a right to bear arms to maintain a militia only (see U.S. v. Miller). Thus, it gives a collective right not an individual for all you people who assume you have a constitutional right to own a gun. Until the case of D.C. v. heller is concluded, there is no fundamental or absolute right to own a gun. It is entirely up to each states discretion to allow people to bear arms or not.

 

Please learn the law before you try to recite it to strengthen your argument or make someone look stupid

[/quote

 

Most of the justices made public statements that said constitutional rights are individual rights we won't have to wait long. Would you apply the same test to the other items in the bill of rights?

[Steely Dan]

"Get your popcorn ready ..."

 

OY VEY! I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading 12 pages of things that probably went off on tangents.

 

 

You don't fail a class if you go along with the professor's left wing views.

 

Some of the best grades I got in College were on papers that disagreed with my professor.

 

 

Wow! What a thread! Look, I don't have the time nor patience to read a 21 page thread but let me say this. I'm not defending Hardy one bit, truth be told I think that this kid has ALOT of issues but until ALL the facts are revealed I'm going to with hold an opinion and even then who's to say how accurate it really is. I think between his childhood, cultural background and the state of our society we are in for some real sticky times with this kid. It doesn't help that he is forever linked to a harden criminal for a father. I believe that Buffalo took a great risk in taking this kid who apparently has alot of baggage. Having said that I also believe that he is still capable of turning himself, his situation and lifestyle around under the right circumstances.

 

Take solace in the fact that players like PacMan Jones, Michael Vick and others have had numerous transgressions before the hammer came down on them. What the Bills/teammates should concentrate on is influencing Hardy in a positive way and surrounding him with the proper people. I think that Hardy's potential downfall is and can be his family. I was thinking about how Trent Edwards has had his sister helping him make the adjustment easier for him but I don't think that this is an option for Hardy unfortunately. I think that the little I know about Marshawn Lynch is that this might be the consumate teammate for Hardy. Lynch's greatest contribution to this team just might be that he can identify and communicate with Hardy in a way that will be welcomed and received. If not or if no one else can reach out and touch this kid then forget about the Bills, this young man just might self destruct all together.

 

When past transgressions are taken into account I think it's fair to lean a little to one side. The Marshawn Lynch thing is totally different IMO because all of the things weren't true. Here we have a guy that has true past transgressions of a serious nature.

 

 

If Hardy's father weren't a deadbeat, drug-dealing (likely) gold-digger, I'd probably be mortified at what Junior did. That is, assuming he ever DID pull out a gun +/- pointed it at his father.

 

Still, you don't pull a gun on someone. As I stated before he obviously hasn't let his anger go over this and it will probably cause more trouble in the future until he does.

 

 

It doesn't seem like the site is completed? Most of the links don't work. Perhaps the creator wore one of the "guns are for cowards" shirts and attracted a criminal to an easy mark. I'm all for anti-gun advocates advertising the fact that they do not believe in defending themselves with a firearm. I think anyone who speaks out against gun rights should have the guts to put a sign in front of their house or on their shirt indicating that a criminal will not be shot if they attack. Hillary, Kennedy, Obama, etc should all refuse armed protection since they don't believe an individual has the need to be protected by a firearm. Let them call the cops to clean up the bodies like the saps that they are attempting to disarm.

 

The reason they need body guards is because people HAVE guns!! You twit!

 

I believe the second amendment allows for guns but there can still be restrictions on certain guns.

[WellDressed]

I have a feeling that whatever did happen, did not die that same afternoon/evening. I just hope if it rears its ugly head again, it does not escalate to something much worse: a shooting (from either parties)

 

Is the young Hardy religious??

[Lurker]

Why are they wasting time in DC arguing this? They should have just asked the law student who did a paper on it.

 

 

I love this place....

[VOR]

Still, you don't pull a gun on someone. As I stated before he obviously hasn't let his anger go over this and it will probably cause more trouble in the future until he does.

I have yet to read a credible account that Junior pulled a gun on his father. All I think I know is that Junior had a gun on him, the gun was legally registered, and it was unconcealed. I believe he was letting his father (again a guy who had done 9 years in prison for drug dealing) know that he shouldn't mess with him. Had Junior actually pointed it at someone without a shady past, I'd be concerned.

 

But I think that Junior should get counselling and get out of Indiana permanently. Or get a restraining order against his dad.

[Grouse89]

OY VEY! I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading 12 pages of things that probably went off on tangents.

 

 

 

 

Some of the best grades I got in College were on papers that disagreed with my professor.

 

 

 

 

When past transgressions are taken into account I think it's fair to lean a little to one side. The Marshawn Lynch thing is totally different IMO because all of the things weren't true. Here we have a guy that has true past transgressions of a serious nature.

 

 

 

 

Still, you don't pull a gun on someone. As I stated before he obviously hasn't let his anger go over this and it will probably cause more trouble in the future until he does.

 

 

 

 

The reason they need body guards is because people HAVE guns!! You twit!

I believe the second amendment allows for guns but there can still be restrictions on certain guns.

I'm curious as to how you think we will ever change that, maybe you don't idk it's been a long day i'm tired and cranky.

[Grouse89]

I have a feeling that whatever did happen, did not die that same afternoon/evening. I just hope if it rears its ugly head again, it does not escalate to something much worse: a shooting (from either parties)

 

Is the young Hardy religious??

what does that have to do with anyting, is god going to stop him from shooting someone? prolly not...

[DC Tom]

Not sure I would pass anything if you were grading it w/ all your constitutional knowledge. The constitution does not give an individual right but each State has the oppurtunity to allow people to keep and bear arms or not; hence, "lots of people own guns and it's legal." By no stretch is the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental right. However, the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case on the 2nd amendment rights and perhaps might overturn their previous intrepratation.

However, until that day,the previous ruling stands in U.S. v. Miller that their is no individual right merely a collective.

 

Actually, US v. Miller specifically questions whether the Second Amendment covers a non-military weapon, specifically "possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

 

It then goes on to quote numerous precedents where a "well-regulated militia" requires individual gun ownership.

 

 

I'd love to read your paper, though. You either managed to justify a position with a decision that says the exact opposite and it's really, really good...or you completely misunderstood US v. Miller and it's really, really bad.

[DC Tom]

OY VEY! I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading 12 pages of things that probably went off on tangents.

 

Yeah...why are we wasting our time here when we can go over to PPP and keep repeating ourselves ad infinitum on habeas corpus.

[thebug]

I have yet to read a credible account that Junior pulled a gun on his father. All I think I know is that Junior had a gun on him, the gun was legally registered, and it was unconcealed. I believe he was letting his father (again a guy who had done 9 years in prison for drug dealing) know that he shouldn't mess with him. Had Junior actually pointed it at someone without a shady past, I'd be concerned.

 

But I think that Junior should get counselling and get out of Indiana permanently. Or get a restraining order against his dad.

 

 

So why then does he need counselling?

[Steely Dan]

I have yet to read a credible account that Junior pulled a gun on his father. All I think I know is that Junior had a gun on him, the gun was legally registered, and it was unconcealed. I believe he was letting his father (again a guy who had done 9 years in prison for drug dealing) know that he shouldn't mess with him. Had Junior actually pointed it at someone without a shady past, I'd be concerned.

 

But I think that Junior should get counselling and get out of Indiana permanently. Or get a restraining order against his dad.

 

I think counseling is the best way to go for now. If his father is a real threat then add in the restraining order.

 

 

I'm curious as to how you think we will ever change that, maybe you don't idk it's been a long day i'm tired and cranky.

 

I don't think it will be changed. The comment was to point out the idiocy of your comment saying they should deny themselves security because they don't agree with unlimited gun ownership. In fact it leads to the exact opposite of your argument. That's all I was saying.

 

 

Yeah...why are we wasting our time here when we can go over to PPP and keep repeating ourselves ad infinitum on habeas corpus.

 

 

Well maybe you'll eventually understand the Supreme Court decision on that.

[VOR]

So why then does he need counselling?

He still has anger issues. However it seems confined to family members and not the general public.

[ax4782]

Yes it does allow an individual the right to keep and bear arms, You just failed your paper son.

 

 

How do I know? Because lots of people own guns and it's LEGAL that is how

 

I'm not sure where you went to law school, but you clearly didn't learn anything about the second amendment. The fact is that the wording of the amendment is ambiguous, not clearly defining under what circumstances a person may keep and bear arms. The question is not whether persons can own firearms. The individual state constitutions in 44 states have a much more clearly articulated individual right to keep and bear arms. As for the decision in U.S. v. Miller, the court neither stated affirmatively that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms, or that the right was purely collective and only allowing for the right to be exercised only in the context of the militia. One should not that ten of the twelve circuit courts have determined that the right is exercised either collectively or under a "sophisticated collective rights model." Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does in fact convey an individual right to keep and bear arms, there is nothing stopping the states or the federal government from placing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right. For example, it is likely that the Felon in Possession laws will be upheld, along with the CCW certification requirements.

 

A collective right to keep and bear arms would not mean that no one could own a firearm. What it means is that under the federal constitution, and thus only in territories or states that do not provide for a clearly articulated right in their own constitutions that provide for a more significant individual right, the Government could restrict more severely the types of weapons that the people could own and when they could have access to them. The fact is, anyone following the case currently in the Supreme Court, that being Heller v. United States, formerly Parker v. United States in the D.C. Circuit, knows the likely outcome. The court is likely to find an individual right, but is not likely to incorporate that right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. They are likely to uphold the reasonable restrictions that are currently in place and to find that a complete ban on handguns, like the one that is currently in place in the District of Columbia, simply goes too far.

 

The arguments that the history of the amendment clearly demonstrate that the right is individual are unfamiliar with the history of the amendment. The fact is the Senate hearings and debate of the amendment were conducted in a closed session and there is no record in existence as to the positions or findings of the Senate. The House reports are ambiguous as to the positions of all of the legislators. Further, you cited Aymette v. State from Tennessee for the proposition that there is an individual right. However, the historical positions of the states are not clear. Take a look at State v. Buzzard from the same time articulating exactly the opposite position. For a good synopsis of the positions presented by both sides I recommend Akhil Reed Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography" which has a good explanation of the logical positions concerning the position's of both sides.

 

As to U.S. v. Miller, the case does not cite a lot of cases that construe an individual right. The case is purposefully ambiguous, and fails to clearly support either position. The precedents that the court cites are to cases from the late 1800s that avoid the question of whether or not to find and individual right in the Constitution AND further, determine that any right construed in the Second Amendment that potentially belongs to the individual is not going to be incorporated to the states. There is a lot of ambiguity in the case law here. The fact is, if Miller were as clear as many on this board believed that it was, there would be no basis for the super majority of the Federal Circuit Court's to have found a collective right. For those who are curious some of the cases from those circuits are as follows:

 

U.S. v. Haney (10th Circuit)

Sklar v. Burns (7th Circuit)

 

There are also prominent cases from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits holding that the Amendment grants some form of a collective right. Many of these cases cite U.S. v. Miller for the proposition that the Amendment construes a collective right. Sorry, but I trust the opinions of 27 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Judges over someone whom I don't even know has a law degree. People enjoy the right to bear arms, because their State constitutions allow them the right to do so. Many people don't realize that the states have the right to grant more protections to their citizens than are afforded by the United States Constitution. The right to own a gun in your individual capacity may be one of those additional protections, or it may not. The Supreme Court has yet to definitively take a position on the issue.