Last month, most likely due to a failure to fully adjust for seasonal workers, it appears the economy added 200,000 jobs. Last week there were 372,000 new jobless claims. The labor market is still bleeding. In one week there were more 172,000 more people who lost their jobs that jobs added to the economy for an entire month. It's like saying "We got butchered again this week, but it's not as bad as when we got butchered last week!" Either way, you're still dead meat.

Alabama should comply in the exact way that the DOJ complied with Rep. Issa's investigation of Fast and Furious. It should provide the DOJ with boxes of 100% redacted (blacked out) documents with an explanation that "certain sensitive information was removed, however we have fully complied with your investigation and will gladly help in any other way we can."

In "District of Columbia v Heller" the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. This should have ended all debate, but the Court then *assumed* the right for itself to make qualifiers. Once it determined that the Second Amendment applied to individuals, the Court ceased to have any further jurisdiction. As a member of the Federal Government, the Court is bound by the 2nd Amendment and cannot infringe on rights reserved to the people and excluded from the Federal Government's jurisdiction. Nor can the Court grant other authorities rights to infringe which are not in the Courts possession. To accept this, however, you must do away with the notion that the Court itself cannot break the law.

Firstly, the Constitution provides for governance at only the Federal and State level. Local governments receive their provisioning under State Constitutions. The Constitution provides for Federal Courts, and grants them authority to hear specific types of cases. All other cases fall to State or Local courts. The real question is: Does the Supreme Court have legitimate authority to declare that a restriction IS legal? When any infringement is denied to the Federal and State governments and the Court is a branch of the Federal Government. The People, as the party delegating Authority, not the Court, are the ultimate authority on what is or isn't Constitutional. We can and should replace the Court if it "interprets" our rights away.

I have the right, so requiring a permit is an infringement. The "well regulated militia" refers to a band of private armed citizens defending their own property. The existence of these, and the fact that they stood against the so called "legal authority" (Britain) is the reason that we won our independence. The type of firearm is irrelevant. The right to defend one's self is absolute and fundamental. If my right to defend myself or my property is infringed in any way, it is tyranny. It does not matter where the "authority" claims its power is derived. The fact that the Constitution enumerates this as a right the authority DOES NOT have means that the "authority" is a criminal if he usurps my right or puts me in jail for exercising it.

Is carrying concealed a form of bearing? If that is the case, than neither the Feds nor the States have any right to *infringe* on the people doing it. Read the Second Amendment, you will find that ALL rights to keep and bear are reserved to the people. The language explicitly excludes authority to regulate or permit from both Federal and State Governments. Unlike every other provision, authority is reserved to the People, not the States or the People. Also, the argument cannot be made that any Article in the Constitution grants such authority, because an Amendment alters and supersedes any language that comes before it which contradicts the Amendment

Kevin, I can't go that far. There are some activities, such as transporting hazardous materials, that can and should be regulated because an unqualified person could cause serious public harm. This is a right and reasonable application of the Commerce Clause. The shapes that the Supreme Court has bent the Commerce Clause disgust me, but I wouldn't be for abolishing it altogether. Keeping and bearing firearms, however, is a right *explicitly* reserved to the People. In all other cases where authority was denied the Federal Government, the language used is that the right or authority is reserved to the States OR the People. The Second Amendment was different, and purposely so. It denies both Federal *and* States the right to infringe.

There are three parties explicitly named in the Constitution: the People (from whom all authority is derived), the States (delegated authority by the People), and the Federal Government (delegated authority by agreement of the People and States). The Second Amendment *exclusively* retains the right to keep and bear arms to the People. To my knowledge, this is the only area of the authority enumerated in the Constitution which excludes BOTH the Federal AND State governments from authority to INFRINGE, let alone regulate and license. There is NO authority for either Federal or State Governments to license firearms (open or concealed carry) , because the Second Amendment *retains* the right to keep and bear arms EXCLUSIVELY to the People.

Apologies for the double post everyone, my left mouse button stuck.

As a current employee of Walmart, I just don't see any grounds for granting a class action. While I'm sure that discrimination happens in a company as large as Walmart is, it is clearly in violation of corporate policy when it happens. Walmart has clearly defined pay scales, with a listing of each job and what it pays available to all its associates. The only variations are merit and years employed modifiers. As a male, Walmart seems, if anything, to be skewed toward preferring females for the higher paying roles (the majority of department managers, and fully half of all salaried managers in my district, are female). The fact is that decisions to promote are made at the store level, by the store or DC manager, based on the...