PDA

View Full Version : Harvard Journal of Law: 2nd Amendment Analysis


Southwest Chuck
08-30-2009, 10:24 PM
I ran across this and thought I'd share. This is a very long but interesting read although not quite up to date since it was written in 1986:
Here's an excerpt: "This Article will demonstrate that in light of the historical evidence, documentation of the intent of the drafters of the Second Amendment and their contemporaries, and the need to maintain a consistent standard of constitutional interpretation, the individual rights approach is the only approach that has any validity."

I thought some might find it a worthwhile read for a good historical context of the 2nd Amendment and the RTBA.
Enjoy. ;) You can find it Here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html

Merc1138
08-31-2009, 2:22 AM
none of this will have any meaning in 2020, as the millenials will be of voting age and according to Soros' Center for American Progress the millenials will steamroll an end to the culture wars. Imagine all these liberal activists groups
multiplied by 3 and on steroids in 2020, the progressive demographic will allow for "Democracy by Mob Rule". This means the brainwashed millenials will march in the streets by the millions demanding the gov't protect them from guns. I didn't see anything in Heller that would stop local authority from creating the most unrealistic restrictions on gun ownership. google "Center for American Progress" find link ----end of culture wars

Seriously, what'd you do, just spam this in a bunch of threads?

fuegoslow
08-31-2009, 7:41 AM
We need more NRA members, NOW!

wildhawker
08-31-2009, 7:48 AM
We need more Calguns members, now- this is where we will build our forces for the culture war.

yellowfin
08-31-2009, 8:09 AM
We need campus carry now so fewer people get to age 22 having never known and seen a law abiding gun owner. If we remain an isolated, invisible, and hypothetical minority we are inescapably destined to lose.

wildhawker
08-31-2009, 8:14 AM
Yellow, if each of us were able to reach just those within a 500' radius of our residence, many more would know a law-abiding gun owner. We don't have to wait for campus carry to reach out.

yellowfin
08-31-2009, 10:17 AM
Yellow, if each of us were able to reach just those within a 500' radius of our residence, many more would know a law-abiding gun owner. We don't have to wait for campus carry to reach out.You just have to wait for people to not have the horrid stigma of gun ownership which makes people stay in the closet. You have to wait for people not to be afraid of losing their job, possibly their kids if some freako influences their spouse to divorce them over it, their kids' private school, their friends, and so on. When exactly were you planning on that happening?

wildhawker
08-31-2009, 10:27 AM
I'm planning on making it happen.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 10:33 AM
Yellow, if each of us were able to reach just those within a 500' radius of our residence, many more would know a law-abiding gun owner. We don't have to wait for campus carry to reach out.

Unfortunately THIS (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=217745) makes reaching out to neighbors a, potentially, losing proposition!

wildhawker
08-31-2009, 11:10 AM
We won't win them all, but we can win more than we have currently. A process sure to endure and evolve in the coming generations, we have the opportunity to lay the foundation for cultural change right here before us.

A TRO is an abnormal response for even a staunch anti-2A advocate. I am interested to have a better set of facts by which to judge the actions of the gunnie and the reaction of the neighbor.

It's critical to present our message in a non-threatening manner conducive to creating dialogue with our audience. Simply providing *our* rationale for 2A support is likely to be ignored by those who do not share our worldview- it may, at worse, instigate more profound and impacting reactions such as that found in your example.

yellowfin
08-31-2009, 11:20 AM
Simply providing *our* rationale for 2A support is likely to be ignored by those who do not share our worldview- . Which is precisely why I say campus carry is so crucial because it puts us in the picture at the place and time where people's worldview is formed. We are at such a steep disadvantage as we are because we are not competing directly with the opposing ideology at its nexus. Instead we are constantly playing from behind. This is unsustainable and quite frankly stupid if you ask me. Why must we do nothing better than always play catch up? I for one would like to do better than try to catch a race car halfway down the track from a cold start.

wildhawker
08-31-2009, 11:32 AM
CC is a limited (but useful) component of the overall struggle for RKBA acceptance. I'm not trying to paint it otherwise, simply stating that there are many opportunities before us which we do not have to wait for.

Nothing prevents us from reaching out to students *right now* and sponsoring "X" college range day w/ free or low-cost entry. Remember, this current wave of business for FFLs and ranges is finite- supporting our efforts to create new 2A supporters/gunnies is a good business decision for them. Investment will be made where a return is perceived to be achievable- it's our job to help everybody make the connection.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 12:14 PM
I really think that one good approach is to force feed the schools a pro-gun agenda on the basis of a civil rights claim. The same thing for PSAs. Getting maximal reach and making sure to get the message to kids before they are indoctrinated is critical.

HotRails
08-31-2009, 2:17 PM
Which is precisely why I say campus carry is so crucial because it puts us in the picture at the place and time where people's worldview is formed. We are at such a steep disadvantage as we are because we are not competing directly with the opposing ideology at its nexus. Instead we are constantly playing from behind. This is unsustainable and quite frankly stupid if you ask me. Why must we do nothing better than always play catch up? I for one would like to do better than try to catch a race car halfway down the track from a cold start.


Much of this probably started during the Vietnam era, with already left leaning minds gettting PhD's to avoid the draft. Recently, attitudes towards public education on the part of some conservative groups have not ingratiated them to educators.

Gray Peterson
08-31-2009, 3:26 PM
none of this will have any meaning in 2020, as the millenials will be of voting age and according to Soros' Center for American Progress the millenials will steamroll an end to the culture wars. Imagine all these liberal activists groups
multiplied by 3 and on steroids in 2020, the progressive demographic will allow for "Democracy by Mob Rule". This means the brainwashed millenials will march in the streets by the millions demanding the gov't protect them from guns. I didn't see anything in Heller that would stop local authority from creating the most unrealistic restrictions on gun ownership. google "Center for American Progress" find link ----end of culture wars

Freeman, you have 984 posts in this forum, yet you are not aware of the multitude of cases that Calguns, SAF, and other groups have against the City of Chicago (McDonald v. City of Chicago, incorporation), City of San Francisco (Jackson v. City of SF), California (Pena v. Cid Handgun Safety Roster), Sacramento County (Sykes v. McGinness, shall issue via court decision), and against DC for carry (Palmer v. District of Columbia).

McDonald has one of two potential effects: incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the due process clause, or overturning the Slaughter-House cases which will apply the ENTIRETY of the bill of rights to the states, including grand jury requirements for felony charges, petit jury requirements for all criminal and civil cases, etc. This would radically change the criminal jurisprudence and laws of the states, which now have to figure this into costs, which significantly slow down legislative passage of criminal laws.

The carry cases (Sykes and Palmer) have as lead plaintiffs GLBT clients. I predict that every carry case that is filed in the future against the recalcitrant anti-carry states (Maryland, DC, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Iowa) will be filed with GLBT lead plaintiffs. Hows that for a culture war?

Seriously, dude, those "millennials" you keep talking a bunch of smack about, they're living in an era where the 2nd amendment is an identified individual right from their childhood. By the time those those millennials are 10, they will know that the 2nd amendment, indeed all of the bill of rights, applies to the states. By the time that they are 12, they will know that the states cannot deny someone the right to carry a firearm for personal protection, which is protected and stated by SCOTUS (either via Palmer or Sykes). When they DO vote, they will not have known an era in reality where the Second Amendment is not a fundamentally protected individual right, unless they are home-schooled by "collective rights" true-believers.

Remember, the culture wars were also fought between people who believed that the believed that the state has the right to invade their homes to prosecute for private acts between consenting adults in ones bedrooms, but then in the next breath stated that the state also did NOT have a right to invade ones home to prosecute for possession of a handgun. It's the ultimate form of hypocrisy, and it didn't go unnoticed. However, now that Lawrence is the law of the land, there's no serious discussion to re-illegalizing it again, outside of the fiercest of the "cultural warrior" types. Most have moved on from that to other issues on the cusp. I believe that the upcoming cases, especially with a Slaughter-house overturn, will lead to a golden age of constitutional jurisprudence where individual liberty will be at it's greatest.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 4:49 PM
The carry cases (Sykes and Palmer) have as lead plaintiffs GLBT clients. I predict that every carry case that is filed in the future against the recalcitrant anti-carry states (Maryland, DC, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Iowa) will be filed with GLBT lead plaintiffs. Hows that for a culture war?

I think it is a sad political necessity that you cannot have a straight white male as a lead plaintiff today. I have no problem with any of the plaintiffs and am happy to have them aboard but the fact that, as you say, "every carry case that is filed... will be filed with GLBT lead plaintiffs" is quite sad. I wish there we were in a society where everyone's rights were equally protected.

Seriously, dude, those "millennials" you keep talking a bunch of smack about, they're living in an era where the 2nd amendment is an identified individual right from their childhood. By the time those those millennials are 10, they will know that the 2nd amendment, indeed all of the bill of rights, applies to the states. By the time that they are 12, they will know that the states cannot deny someone the right to carry a firearm for personal protection, which is protected and stated by SCOTUS (either via Palmer or Sykes).

...


I believe that the upcoming cases, especially with a Slaughter-house overturn, will lead to a golden age of constitutional jurisprudence where individual liberty will be at it's greatest.

That would be the best conceivable outcome to be sure. I fine goal to work toward.

Gray Peterson
08-31-2009, 6:50 PM
I think it is a sad political necessity that you cannot have a straight white male as a lead plaintiff today. I have no problem with any of the plaintiffs and am happy to have them aboard but the fact that, as you say, "every carry case that is filed... will be filed with GLBT lead plaintiffs" is quite sad. I wish there we were in a society where everyone's rights were equally protected.

Yet they will be because everyone will be able to apply for a license and have it issued under the auspices of equal protection once the GLBT plaintiff gets there's under a binding court decision.

It's the reality of what we're confronted with. Minorities which are historically and statistically more likely to suffer violent attack have a better shot at convincing a judge than a WASP guy.

POLICESTATE
08-31-2009, 6:59 PM
I think it is a sad political necessity that you cannot have a straight white male as a lead plaintiff today.

Makes one think about what things might be like if they ever come out with race-reassignment surgery!

meinbruder
08-31-2009, 7:14 PM
It seems I am compelled to disagree with both of you, at least to a point. As a generation, the Millennials started becoming of age to vote five or six years ago. This is a generation of people not only accustomed to being given everything they want, by parents, but believing that *government* is responsible to give them everything they lack. I have had several distressing discussions with my niece who is all of twenty years old. This is a generation taught in public schools that the ballot may be used to shore up what-ever is lacking in society. This is a generation which will impose *mob rule* at the ballot box when its children will begin to vote.

As far as the various cases now working through the system are concerned, only time will expose the result of litigation and interpretation by the courts; at this point none of them are assured to settle favorably for the Second Amendment. Even if all of them do, there is an increasing call for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the foundations of government in this country. A convention the Millennials will have a significant impact upon, should it occur. Given the current Red/ Blue division at the center of the *culture war* in this country I should point out the nearly fifty/ fifty split in belief systems held by city versus country folk. Any significant increase in urban/ suburban population may very well steamroll our existing system into oblivion.

Mr(?) Peterson, I hope you are right about the results of overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases; the integrity of the Republic is at stake. I do fear the country is headed for a simple-majority form of democracy in the not to distant future, a form of democracy which cares not for the rule of law but only for the rule of the electorate. If you are a resident of California, the results of a misguided, or manipulated, electorate should be apparent all around you. I must agree with m_freeman and state my own trepidation over the growing political power of the Millennial Generation.

I also find the comments of your last paragraph puzzling, in both cited cases society will dictate what is acceptable behavior from its citizens. Whether one behavior or another is acceptable is open to the interpretation of the electorate. Oh my, we seem to be circling back to the Millennials again. May I suggest that you consider reading the works of William Strauss and Neil Howe while I nip off to The Center for American Progress; you may be in for a surprise. It seems we both have some reading to do.



Freeman, you have 984 posts in this forum, yet you are not aware of the multitude of cases that Calguns, SAF, and other groups have against the City of Chicago (McDonald v. City of Chicago, incorporation), City of San Francisco (Jackson v. City of SF), California (Pena v. Cid Handgun Safety Roster), Sacramento County (Sykes v. McGinness, shall issue via court decision), and against DC for carry (Palmer v. District of Columbia).

McDonald has one of two potential effects: incorporation of the 2nd amendment via the due process clause, or overturning the Slaughter-House cases which will apply the ENTIRETY of the bill of rights to the states, including grand jury requirements for felony charges, petit jury requirements for all criminal and civil cases, etc. This would radically change the criminal jurisprudence and laws of the states, which now have to figure this into costs, which significantly slow down legislative passage of criminal laws.

The carry cases (Sykes and Palmer) have as lead plaintiffs GLBT clients. I predict that every carry case that is filed in the future against the recalcitrant anti-carry states (Maryland, DC, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Iowa) will be filed with GLBT lead plaintiffs. Hows that for a culture war?

Seriously, dude, those "millennials" you keep talking a bunch of smack about, they're living in an era where the 2nd amendment is an identified individual right from their childhood. By the time those those millennials are 10, they will know that the 2nd amendment, indeed all of the bill of rights, applies to the states. By the time that they are 12, they will know that the states cannot deny someone the right to carry a firearm for personal protection, which is protected and stated by SCOTUS (either via Palmer or Sykes). When they DO vote, they will not have known an era in reality where the Second Amendment is not a fundamentally protected individual right, unless they are home-schooled by "collective rights" true-believers.

Remember, the culture wars were also fought between people who believed that the believed that the state has the right to invade their homes to prosecute for private acts between consenting adults in ones bedrooms, but then in the next breath stated that the state also did NOT have a right to invade ones home to prosecute for possession of a handgun. It's the ultimate form of hypocrisy, and it didn't go unnoticed. However, now that Lawrence is the law of the land, there's no serious discussion to re-illegalizing it again, outside of the fiercest of the "cultural warrior" types. Most have moved on from that to other issues on the cusp. I believe that the upcoming cases, especially with a Slaughter-house overturn, will lead to a golden age of constitutional jurisprudence where individual liberty will be at it's greatest.

hoffmang
08-31-2009, 8:32 PM
Even with incorporation can't the future brainwashed generation demand Hawaiin style gun regs?
They can also demand hate speech laws. Both will fail to the Judiciary as the should.

The only way to undo the coming wave of pro-gun court wins is to amend the US Constitution.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
08-31-2009, 8:34 PM
It seems I am compelled to disagree with both of you, at least to a point. As a generation, the Millennials started becoming of age to vote five or six years ago. This is a generation of people not only accustomed to being given everything they want, by parents, but believing that *government* is responsible to give them everything they lack. I have had several distressing discussions with my niece who is all of twenty years old. This is a generation taught in public schools that the ballot may be used to shore up what-ever is lacking in society. This is a generation which will impose *mob rule* at the ballot box when its children will begin to vote.

Your definition of "Millennial" is different from mine. M_Freeman, from what I'm reading, defines millennials as those who were born around 2000 and will become full adults come 2020. Your definition would encompass those who were born in the 1980's, more on the middle to late side. I became eligible to vote in 1999. That would make me a "millennial" for that purpose.

As far as the various cases now working through the system are concerned, only time will expose the result of litigation and interpretation by the courts; at this point none of them are assured to settle favorably for the Second Amendment. Even if all of them do, there is an increasing call for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the foundations of government in this country. A convention the Millennials will have a significant impact upon, should it occur. Given the current Red/ Blue division at the center of the *culture war* in this country I should point out the nearly fifty/ fifty split in belief systems held by city versus country folk. Any significant increase in urban/ suburban population may very well steamroll our existing system into oblivion.

Um, you do know that there's 1) Only 22 states with an active constitutional convention call (32 have called, but 10 or 11 of them rescinded), and 2) It only takes 13 states to block an amendment to the constitution. The idea of a "steamrolling" of urban interests, again, all it takes is 13 small states to block it. Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire. I'm not even including ANY of the southern states with this one.

A constitutional convention that proposes large changes to federalism principles (or a second amendment repeal) is dead on arrival, a nonstarter.

Mr(?) Peterson, I hope you are right about the results of overturning the Slaughterhouse Cases; the integrity of the Republic is at stake. I do fear the country is headed for a simple-majority form of democracy in the not to distant future, a form of democracy which cares not for the rule of law but only for the rule of the electorate. If you are a resident of California, the results of a misguided, or manipulated, electorate should be apparent all around you. I must agree with m_freeman and state my own trepidation over the growing political power of the Millennial Generation.

It's Mr. Peterson, meinbruder, but I prefer Gray.

I'm more fearful of my generation than their children. We saw how proposition 8 turned democracy on it's head. There is no justification for direct constitutional amendment on the state level. None whatsoever. In Washington state, we don't allow state constitutional amendments by initiative.

I also find the comments of your last paragraph puzzling, in both cited cases society will dictate what is acceptable behavior from its citizens. Whether one behavior or another is acceptable is open to the interpretation of the electorate. Oh my, we seem to be circling back to the Millennials again. May I suggest that you consider reading the works of William Strauss and Neil Howe while I nip off to The Center for American Progress; you may be in for a surprise. It seems we both have some reading to do.

It depends on what our definition of "Millennial" is. I still stand by my statement that those born in 2000 are going to have a better understanding of the 2nd amendment being a fundamental individual right than my generation. You throw in Slaughter-House being overturned in the mix, and I still stand by it.

meinbruder
09-01-2009, 12:06 AM
According to Strauss & Howe, the Millennials began to appear in the early eighties and started to come of age in 2000 to í03. You would be on the cusp, or leading edge, of the transition. The conventional view of a generation is birth year, a better view is the societal/ political/ economic pressures of a group of young adults coming of age. There would be a certain amount of lapping from one generation to the next, perhaps you and I are in that category. The theory is that societal change defines the generation, which in turn drives the generation to change society.

What is seen as a threat to society is worked against politically. As has been seen over the last few decades, the rights of citizens have been curtailed slowly. This has been part of a systematic approach to form public opinion to be accepting of governmental control for the benefit of the greatest number. Simple Marxist theory, the greatest good for the largest number; if that means the rights of the few are abridged, so be it. I give you the Patriot Act as evidence.

I will completely agree with you, a Constitutional Convention would be an impossibility; politically or otherwise. What worries me is a breakdown in rule of law followed by revolution, whether merely a radical change in voting or something more intimidating, if I may use the expression. As a leading edge Millennial, you should be worried about your generation; as a native of Washington State, you were raised very differently than the majority of your peers in California.

Perhaps I can illustrate my point from a different perspective. What do Kansas City, KS. Chicago, IL. Portland, OR. and Seattle, WA. have in common? Major metropolitan areas with sufficient votes to swamp the rest of their state, if enough people can be convinced to vote correctly. California has four metro areas which carry more than half the states population, most of which votes Democrat. These are precisely the areas at risk in the next ten years by an electorate easily swayed by propaganda and the Millennials as a group have been taught that government is the answer to the question. The current economic condition of the State of California is the result of an electorate which has been trained to expect succor from the state.

The direct initiative was introduced in California to break political gridlock at the State legislative level. *The People* realized years ago that politicians couldnít be trusted to keep the best interest of the people in mind so a system was designed to force political change by direct ballot. Sadly, most of the electorate is easily influenced by propaganda so problems regularly get voted into law and have to be dealt with in the courts. Prop 8 is a perfect example; bigotry, ignorance, and hatred codified into state law. Wonít it be fun when the direct initiative is introduced at the federal level? Laws being voted into place by 50.1 percent of the electorate over the objection of 49.9 percent.

Like I said, I hope you are right about the Slaughterhouse Cases shoring up federalism. I am quite certain you are right about the impossibility of a Constitutional Convention any time soon but am equally convinced the Millennials are the greatest political threat this country has ever seen. IIRC, the OP was posting an agreement that the Second Amendment was an individual right. I concur. A couple of people indicated more CGF and NRA members are needed to sway votes in the right direction, again I concur. Getting more people involved in the fight over the Second Amendment can only benefit the country as a whole because it will reinforce federalism.

Good Night Gray, call me Mike. Iíll see you around the forums.

hoffmang
09-01-2009, 12:25 AM
I give you the Patriot Act as evidence.


Not 1 Millennial conceived of or voted for the Patriot Act. In fact the demographic of the Clinton Administration folks who wrote the wish list, the Bush Administration who re-proposed the wish list, and all of the politicians in both houses (by law) were not a single one of them a millennial under either definition.

So much that is so wrong with our political culture was kicked off by the boomers, shepharded through by the boomers, and will wane as their political influence and actual influence (due to death) continues.

GCA... 1968...

-Gene

bridgeport
09-01-2009, 6:15 AM
A few things to think about. As young folk get older, they sometimes get wiser, especially after having to pay income taxes, and or have children of their own. As Churchill said, To be liberal when you are young shows you have a heart, to be conservative when you are older shows you have a brain. We are on a rising tide of pro 2A sentiment right now, as anybody in the firearms industry knows, I see opportunity here with young folks, to introduce to them in a positive way,
the advantages of 2A rights up to and including how these rights affect the others.

dantodd
09-01-2009, 7:44 AM
Not 1 Millennial conceived of or voted for the Patriot Act. In fact the demographic of the Clinton Administration folks who wrote the wish list, the Bush Administration who re-proposed the wish list, and all of the politicians in both house

This brings up a VERY important item.

The threat to our Second Amendment rights is an ever expansive government; not one particular party. Rolling back the infringements of our 2A rights will come with the rolling back of governmental growth.

wildhawker
09-01-2009, 10:06 AM
Mike,

The Millennials are not the threat- they are the opportunity. We don't need to simply sway votes, we need to create a lasting culture shift. It's not marble cake federalism that needs to be reinforced, but the framers' simple and limited government brand of federalism, one that respects the individual rights of the People and those powers (and responsibilities) of the states.

Together, it is possible- how would you like to get involved?

I am quite certain you are right about the impossibility of a Constitutional Convention any time soon but am equally convinced the Millennials are the greatest political threat this country has ever seen. IIRC, the OP was posting an agreement that the Second Amendment was an individual right. I concur. A couple of people indicated more CGF and NRA members are needed to sway votes in the right direction, again I concur. Getting more people involved in the fight over the Second Amendment can only benefit the country as a whole because it will reinforce federalism.

Good Night Gray, call me Mike. Iíll see you around the forums.

trashman
09-01-2009, 1:46 PM
So much that is so wrong with our political culture was kicked off by the boomers, shepharded through by the boomers, and will wane as their political influence and actual influence (due to death) continues.


Amen and amen. Don't forget the proportional impact they will continue to have on the health care system, job markets, and the overall economy as they struggle to replace the recently lost wealth of their next-to-last decade of work.

--Neill

pullnshoot25
09-01-2009, 2:28 PM
We need more Calguns members, now- this is where we will build our forces for the culture war.

I just got accepted to be the Public Relations officer for the Marksmanship club down here at UCSD. I will try to get more college students involved :)

meinbruder
09-01-2009, 6:12 PM
All very true statements. The Boomers currently control the legislative process in Washington and, at least in theory, have the best interest of the country in mind. The Millennials will equally control the Legislature in their day but as a group are accustomed to being indulged and catered to as a birthright. I wonder, and worry, how different the approach to governance will be.

I hope you are right about the coming wave of favorable court cases.
Mike


Not 1 Millennial conceived of or voted for the Patriot Act. In fact the demographic of the Clinton Administration folks who wrote the wish list, the Bush Administration who re-proposed the wish list, and all of the politicians in both houses (by law) were not a single one of them a millennial under either definition.

So much that is so wrong with our political culture was kicked off by the boomers, shepharded through by the boomers, and will wane as their political influence and actual influence (due to death) continues.

GCA... 1968...

-Gene

meinbruder
09-01-2009, 6:23 PM
Well, for the last six years I have been taking as many of them to the range as I can get my hands one. Out of the thirty or so, six of them have started taking others from college to the range, PSU has a number of people I have directly, or indirectly, coached. Having just moved here from Portland, I will need to get re-established before resuming my efforts. Iíll drop you a note in a few months when Iím able to help out in a consistent fashion.
Mike



Mike,

The Millennials are not the threat- they are the opportunity. We don't need to simply sway votes, we need to create a lasting culture shift. It's not marble cake federalism that needs to be reinforced, but the framers' simple and limited government brand of federalism, one that respects the individual rights of the People and those powers (and responsibilities) of the states.

Together, it is possible- how would you like to get involved?

wildhawker
09-01-2009, 9:54 PM
Looking forward to it!