JP> -> It wouldn't be constitutional.
JP> 
JP> You know, Matt, you remind me of my brother.  He owns guns, but 
JP> doesn't
JP> belong to the NRA or worry about the government outlawing his guns
JP> because "They can't do that, it would be unconstitutional."
JP> 
JP> -> All NRA (or any other group on any side of any issue) is doing is
JP> -> running its own one-issue _newspaper_ when it prints such
JP> -> information, and the courts won't allow "prior restraint" of
JP> -> newspapers, newsletters, etc. There is a long history of such 
JP> cases.
JP> 
JP> And how many years might it take for such a court case to work it's 
JP> way
JP> through our court system, past all the appeals and delays?  
    That doesn't change the fact that the courts have _repeatedly_ refused to 
allow prior restraint of newspapers, newsletters, and books...and if that 
protected them, it'll protect us.
    The New York Times was hardly 'destroyed' by the fact that it had to 
litigate the Pentagon Papers case (which it won).
JP> A:  It's always easier to defeat a bad law **BEFORE** it's passed 
    True.  But with "administrative" actions, like the Clintons love as a way 
of avoiding having to deal with congress, the courts are great.  Look what 
they did to the Nixon administration.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
(1:3644/8)
---------------