A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
The Supreme Court strengthened the rights of property owners who are confronted by federal environmental regulators, ruling Wednesday that they are entitled to a hearing to challenge the government's threats to fine them for building on their own land.
The 9-0 decision is a victory for an Idaho couple portrayed by critics of the Environmental Protection Agency as victims of heavy-handed regulators.
when the Sacketts sought to challenge this order, they were told by EPA officials, by a federal judge and by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that they had no right to a hearing. Instead, they were told to comply with the order first and then seek a permit to resume building.
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking in the courtroom, mocked the EPA's view that the Sacketts' small lot was protected by federal law as part of the "navigable waters" of the United States. The couple, "never having seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard," questioned that their lot was a wetland, Scalia said, and they are entitled to a civil hearing before the agency to contest the EPA's jurisdiction over their property.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking in the courtroom, mocked the EPA's view that the Sacketts' small lot was protected by federal law as part of the "navigable waters" of the United States. The couple, "never having seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard," questioned that their lot was a wetland
I love that part. Nice sense of humor even if it may have been only that one time.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
