Heller potentially screwed by the Bush Administration

[hoffmang]

The US DOJ and Solicitor General filed a brief supporting and individual right in the Second Amendment but basically agreeing that the DC Handgun ban may very well be constitutional. David Hardy puts it better than I can:


As I read this, the (Bush) Dept of Justice is asking that the Court hold it to be an individual right, but not strike the DC gun law, instead sending it back down to the trial court to take evidence on everything from how much the District needs the law to whether people can defend themselves without pistols and just what the DC trigger lock law means. THEN maybe it can begin another four year trek to the Supremes. That is, the DoJ REJECTS the DC Circuit position that an absolute, flat, ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, and contends that it might just be justified, it all depends on the evidence.

There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file_1.php

Thanks Republicans...

-Gene

[chico.cm]

well for ****'s sake.

[AJAX22]

I just read this on another site, I was really hoping that it was just rumormongering......

[SemiAutoSam]

SO what your saying is the Bush Administration saw the path this case was taking and they have derailed it?

Can the court tell the Bush Administration to Bugger off ?

IE its not their place to tell the court what to do ?

[bwiese]

This is the kinda thing that needs to light up the R's fundraising phonelines NOW.

[GW]

I would assume its advisory like an amicus brief albeit one with weight
However, the judicial branch is supposed to be independent and (I pray) they shall judge the case on its merits only

[Sgt Raven]

SO what your saying is the Bush Administration saw the path this case was taking and they have derailed it?

Can the court tell the Bush Administration to Bugger off ?

IE its not their place to tell the court what to do ?

I'd say what I feel, but it would be censored out. :mad: :( :inquis:

[Liberty1]

My take is that this being an election year, an individual rights decision by SCOTUS takes the Republican's gun control single issue voters away and frees up southern "blue dog" democrats to vote Dem. in November. This delay would keep this wedge issue in the Republican camp.

Vote Ron Paul in the primary and tell the big government Republicans we want our liberties and Constitution defended against all enemies: foreign and DOMESTIC!

[Liberty1]

I would assume its advisory like an amicus brief albeit one with weight
However, the judicial branch is supposed to be independent and (I pray) they shall judge the case on its merits only

There is always the chance that one or some of the justices suggested this as a way for the Republicans to side step the issue for election year reasons.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Thanks Republicans...



Just goes to show you can't trust anybody from the ruling class!:mad:

[tygerpaw]

Bush is not a conservative. Republicrats and Democans. They both suck.

[AfricanHunter]

This is the kinda thing that needs to light up the R's fundraising phonelines NOW.

Who should we call. The GOP's fundraising branch? Bush? etc?

What else can be done?

Anything the NRa can do?

I am disgusted with the way our gov't has gone.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Can the court tell the Bush Administration to Bugger off ?



Not only can the court tell the Bush Administration to Bugger off, it is their obligation to do so! :D



The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.

With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The three branches of the U.S. Government are the legislative, executive, and judicial.

[Liberty1]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file_1.php


Be sure to read the comments. Here is my new favorite:

This shows that George Bush is indeed a uniter, not a divider. This will have even more people united to seek his impeachment.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I am disgusted with the way our gov't has gone.


The State Vs. The People
by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman

The increase in government power is like a political arms buildup against the citizenry -- a vast expansion of the pretexts that the governing class has to attack the governed. A massive military buildup by one government can often subdue its foreign enemies without a fight. Similarly, contemporary statute books convey sufficient punitive power that citizens surrender without a fight in most potential conflicts with the government.

Americans should heed Wolfe and Zelman when they urge people to practice "living resistance" -- which means "committing your life to making sure that you never, through choice or inertia, help lay the bricks that build the police state."

People must summon the will and resolution to drive politicians out of their own lives. What is needed now is the same passion and outrage over political and bureaucratic aggrandizement that existed towards chattel slavery 140 years ago. We must recognize that possession of government office does not confer ownership rights over human beings....

If contemporary Americans can cease idolizing the State, a rebirth of the spirit of freedom will begin and the threat of America becoming a Police State will become far less foreboding.

-- From the Introduction by James Bovard

[Sam Hainn]

Did Hugo Chavez just take over the White House? When did that happen? :confused:

[RRangel]

The court is not supposed to do what the administration wants. Brief or not. There are many briefs that are full of it, and this one would be no different. I would hope that the administration cannot influence the Supreme Court in making the right decision.

[hoffmang]

Unfortunately, the Solicitor General holds a little extra sway with SCOTUS than the average Amici. That said though - this is a case with very little comparable history - so we may yet still get what we want.

The good - we may get 9-0 on individual rights.

The bad, we might lose 5-4 that the case should be remanded to the district court- which is not our friend - for further fact finding.

Which facts need to be found, no one knows...

-Gene

[Sam Hainn]

The court is not supposed to do what the administration wants. Brief or not. There are many briefs that are full of it, and this one would be no different. I would hope that the administration cannot influence the Supreme Court in making the right decision.


THOSE "briefs" have hash-marks.

[Blackflag]

I would assume its advisory like an amicus brief albeit one with weight

The DOJ files briefs in almost all supreme court cases. It doesn't carry any more weight than any other brief.

And I would tend to say that this one will be mostly ignored...it's really asking the court not to make a decision. They didn't take the case just to not make a decision.

[Blackflag]

There is always the chance that one or some of the justices suggested this as a way for the Republicans to side step the issue for election year reasons.

Impossible.

[Liberty1]

Impossible.

I hope so...

[aileron]

This is just getting worst. God I hope the supremes don't fold under the pressure. I bet they will. This will screw us all up; the dems well win the presidency, and then we will be torn to pieces as the 2nd becomes a has been. They well in effect remove 20% of the BOR.

This feels like a real dirty trick.

[SKG19]

I would hope that the administration cannot influence the Supreme Court in making the right decision.

I hope that's the case...but it sure shines a light on the 'conservative' Republican party...and why in good faith I can not and will not vote for them again.

Arnold's redistricting plan was supported by every major newspaper (SF Chron, LA Times, Sac Bee, etc...) in the state. Did it pass...nope to much money against it.

Lets just say I'm losing faith in our system.

You know things are getting crazy when radical leftists are starting to believe the 2A is a good thing. check out http://chrysta.org/word/?p=23
around the 24 min mark

[Piper]

I was initially shocked when I heard this. Then I went to the USDOJ website and noticed that the current AG is from New York. It wasn't so shocking after that.

[Librarian]

This is the kinda thing that needs to light up the R's fundraising phonelines NOW.

Drop a line to

Office of the Chairman
Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Email: Chairman@gop.com

Here's mine: Mr. Duncan,

I know I speak for a few hundred people - who have responded to the content of this brief in news groups and gun owner on-line communities - when I tell you this brief has begun to raise serious questions about the Republican Party.

Since this brief has been available for just a few hours, this is just the beginning.

I believe your fund-raising efforts have just become more difficult. Many people judge support for the District's position to be a frank betrayal, and I concur. Gun owners see this case as an opportunity to overturn seventy years of wrong-headed judicial activism, and support from a Republican administration for the position we want overturned has come as a cruel shock.

Having nowhere else to go, gun owners have tried to accept the relatively lower level of political perfidy on this issue from Republicans. Being slapped in the face again is not the best feeling, and does not engender generosity towards the slappers.

[hoffmang]

The DOJ files briefs in almost all supreme court cases. It doesn't carry any more weight than any other brief.


You are badly mistaken.

This gives a decent background on the issue: http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/426

Before this we were just fighting stupid Brady Campaign rhetoric. Now...

-Gene

[Blackflag]

You are badly mistaken.

This gives a decent background on the issue: http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/426



I worked in the court. That link is to an article - just his opinion/argument that there is deference. And this is my opinion.

But I do agree with your last point...this is an uphill battle. People got all geeked up when they heard a 2nd Amd case was going to the supreme court. But be careful what you wish for...this could go very bad for us.

[hoffmang]

Black,

I can find the scoreboard if you'd like but my recollection is that SCOTUS follows the Solicitor General in 80% of cases. That said, I don't remember what the breakdown is on the rate between when the Court requests his opinion and when he files on his own accord.

-Gene

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I've said it before...the Republican party has lost its way.

Big Government. Fiscal irresponsibility. Nation building. Policing the world. Curtails to personal liberties.

And now...

Gun owners had better create one hell of a sh$& storm over this! With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[Liberty1]

Drop a line to

Office of the Chairman
Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Email: Chairman@gop.com



The phone message system isn't taking messages claiming the voice mail box is full. I sent an e-mail though and will "light up" his phone on Monday.

[Blackflag]

What does "follows him" mean? To both find for the petitioner or respondent? That's not hard to predict, because the court reverses the court of appeals 75% of the time.

Or do you mean adopts the solicitor general's reasoning? If that's what you mean, that's B.S. Does it even make sense to you...nine people rise to the absolute height of the profession and get a spot for life, insulated from politics...only for all nine to follow the direction of a good lawyer who will be in his job for about 4 years? Please. :rolleyes: The people filing the briefs in the private sector have longer histories with the justices.

I gave my opinion...obviously not persuasive to you. Whatever, it's not like I worked there or something. The internet scoreboard should know better. :)

[AngelDecoys]

The good - we may get 9-0 on individual rights.

The bad, we might lose 5-4 that the case should be remanded to the district court- which is not our friend - for further fact finding.

Which facts need to be found, no one knows...

-Gene

Yikes. Bad news. Well I was hoping for the good (independent right), though have not been expecting much more.

Not sure what facts there are to gather either? Like many of the cases heading to the Supremes, this one was pre-designed. Lawyer interviewed 100's of candidates before initially filing, sliming down the pool to those most likely to pass muster. (Retired police officer for 1).

Even with these twists and turns, a 9-0 ruling the 2nd as an 'independent right' would still make me happy.

Enough to make Silveira moot. I can be happy with that.

[hoffmang]

Black,

I hear that you were a clerk. I'm not arguing that. I'm looking at the statistics as I remember reading them in depth from scotusblog and others. My comment was "follows the SG's reasoning." I'll dig up the actual stats as I want to know definitively also.

I badly hope you are correct. However, this move is really bad politics no matter what the actual outcome ends up being.

-Gene

[Liberty1]

So is this our new "friend"?

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm

If it is, his bio seems to indicate he should have been more on our side. Mr. Clement clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. After his clerkships, he worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis. Mr. Clement went on to serve as Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.

[Blackflag]

My comment was "follows the SG's reasoning."

You didn't say that in the earlier post...and I have to say that's flat-out wrong. That's crazy and would take a ton of work for somebody to even keep track of...that would mean reading every case and every SG brief. 80% same result may be right, because - like I said - that's just the statistics of the court. I would be interested in that link if you find it.

Nonetheless - we're on the same side. The SG brief pretty much says that it's an individual right, but subject to intermediate scrutiny on reasonable restrictions. The 1st Amd. has more protection than that. Let's hope they don't follow that...because if they do, it's going to mean a whole lot more laws, starting in Cal. :mad:

[hoffmang]

So is this our new "friend"?

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm

If it is, his bio seems to indicate he should have been more on our side.

Unfortunately the position in this brief was a decision made way above his pay grade. He is on our side but he was compelled to file what he did would be what I read plainly into it.

-Gene

[artherd]

Mother...

[hoffmang]

Blackflag,

Here is scholarly research from '53 to '88:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-4078(198803)41:1%3C135:ACBBTS%3E2.0.CO;2-7
"While petitioners supported by the U.S. win 84 percent of the time" - granted that SG didn't support a petitioner here.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440741144
74% follow rate when invited to opine.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D7 84tRHO8mEEC%26pg%3DPA29%26lpg%3DPA29%26dq%3Dsolici tor%2Bgeneral%2Bsupreme%2Bcourt%2Bwin%2Bpercentage %26source%3Dweb%26ots%3DRu_ecqnnns%26sig%3Dxh08Z8X pRLP8E_nqnwdAlwsYau8&ei=i22IR67HF4OSpwT7jKXmDA&usg=AFQjCNFyQvSheEK-SfBSI_mk67kFRKQDwQ&sig2=fP8O-q8rR3dZpeqDkUH7XA
SG wins 67% of the arguments it puts in front. Not clear on what full context.

You can see where I get my worry from.

-Gene

[Blackflag]

Do you know if the SG was invited to opine in this case?

[FreedomIsNotFree]

If we cant get a win with Heller, it simply is NEVER going to happen. Another 4 years may as well be never.

[hoffmang]

The SG was not invited and entered of his own accord.

My .sig line is just a little too close for comfort today...

-Gene

[Addax]

I sense some back door politics going on here...:(

[Blackflag]

That's what I thought. Those links are really focused on when he's asked for his opinion... so there is hope.:)

[Liberty1]

That's what I thought. Those links are really focused on when he's asked for his opinion... so there is hope.:)

So how do We The People get a message to the el Supremos? Demonstrate on the Mall or send you to DC with some of Hoffmang's 18 yo scotch for a friendly back room chat?

[Scarecrow Repair]

THOSE "briefs" have hash-marks.

I think you mean "skid-marks".

[Addax]

Hell, I supply the 21yo Scotch if it will help any! :43:

[383green]

Does SCOTUS generally side with the SG because they're swayed by his opinion, or because he generally does his homework and correctly interprets the Constitution? Remember, correlation does not equate to causation.

[Blackflag]

So how do We The People get a message to the el Supremos? Demonstrate on the Mall or send you to DC with some of Hoffmang's 18 yo scotch for a friendly back room chat?

Got to file a brief... I wonder who else is filing?

[bwiese]

Does SCOTUS generally side with the SG because they're swayed by his opinion, or because he generally does his homework and correctly interprets the Constitution? Remember, correlation does not equate to causation.

True.

And I'd bet this was a legalistic thing below the political radar of the upper Administration with a lotta input from long term DOJ civil staff. With a war going on and focus on economic concerns, this was not on any senior White House occupant's worries screen.

Remember that this stuff is important to us but it's not nearly as far up on the list in a busy news season for Administration.

They probably think they did their thing with PLCAA passage (yes, very good) and Prez not signing the AW Ban (cuz it was set up that way - again, very good).

But squeaky wheels need grease and running our protest of this by lighthing up GOP offices/channels can't hurt. Time to ring their bells.

Gene, any chance this can get withdrawn?

[MrTuffPaws]

Once again, I'd never thought that I would say this, but I miss Ashcroft.

[Hunter]

Reading thru the brief shows that the Gov't is afraid that a lot of federal gun laws will be overturned with this case and they are afraid of that. Particularly, those that govern NFA weapons in this country.



While the court of appeals correctly recognized
that the Second Amendment both secures individual
rights and allows “reasonable restrictions” (Pet. App.
51a), it appears to have adopted a categorical test. The
court of appeals concluded that, “[o]nce it is determined
* * * that handguns are ‘Arms’ referred to in the Second
Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban
them.” Pet. App. 53a. Such a categorical approach
would cast doubt on the constitutionality of the current
federal machinegun ban, as well as on Congress’s general
authority to protect the public safety by identifying
and proscribing particularly dangerous weapons.

[rssslvr]

Who else can we call and send emails too besides the Office of the Chairman?

[Liberty1]

Dr. Lott's blog this morning:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

[SemiAutoSam]

This part was real interesting.


1/12/2008
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SIDES WITH DC ON GUN BAN CASE
Yes, you read this headline correctly. An email from Joe Olson at Hamline University School of Law alerted me to this problem. David Hardy briefly discusses the Bush Administration's brief on the Parker/Heller case. Here is my question: if it is merely a question of reasonable regulations, why put the second amendment in the bill of rights? Why use the term "shall not be infringed"? The DOJ brief mentions the phrase "shall not be infringed" once when it quotes the amendment. Here is my question: what would the writers of the Second Amendment have had to write if they were serious that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? A copy of DOJ's brief can be seen here.

There are numerous factual mistakes in the brief. For example, on page 21 they refer to the "current federal machine gun ban." There is no such ban. Some 250,000 machine guns are legally owned in the US. The discussion of what is meant by the term "well regulated" on page 22 is not what I know the term to mean. As I understood the term at the amendment was written meant "well disciplined," but the DOJ brief wants to use the current usage of the term.

What is particularly disappointing is the excellent research that the DOJ had done on the Second Amendment just a few years earlier. Thanks to John McGregor for reminding me to post a link to this.
Labels: GunControl, SupremeCourt

posted by John Lott at 3:15 AM 1 comments links to this post

Movie with multiple victim shooting stopped by person with gun
This movie appears to definitely have its problems. The protagonist, Christian Slater, stops the killer, but apparently he also had "thoughts of terminating his co-workers." Why can't he just be a permit holder who saves lives? Anyway, for those interested, please go here.
Labels: DefensiveGunUse

posted by John Lott at 2:54 AM 0 comments links to this post

When to joke and when to give serious answers?
I guess that I frequently take things too seriously, but while Huckabee is strong on protecting people's right to own guns, he rarely seems to explain the reasons well. I am not sure what to make of the answer below. Is it funny? Yes, I guess so. But in the discussion below will listeners come away thinking that there is a real problem by not having a one-gun-a-month rule? I fear that is the case. Can't there be some kernel of education in the discussion? This is from Huckabee's appearance on the Colbert Report:


COLBERT: South Carolina gun laws are so loose that you can go into any gun shop and buy as many handguns as you want. I mean 200 of them and then just ship them up here to New York and sell them illegally on the street and raise some serious scratch.

HUCKABEE: How do you think I've financed my campaign for the past 11 months?

COLBERT: Smart man!

COLBERT: Pick me up a couple?

HUCKABEE: On their way. What kind would you like?

COLBERT: Something with the serial numbers scratched off.

HUCKABEE: Consider it done.

COLBERT: I know you're a man of your word. You would never rescind your offer of making me vice president no matter how well you do in the campaign. But I'm going to give you one more chance to get out of it. Just ask me, I'll say no ...

HUCKABEE: Steven, be my running mate?

COLBERT: Yes!!!!!!!!!
Labels: 2008PresidentialRace, GunControl, Huckabee



Dr. Lott's blog this morning:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

[rkt88edmo]

I have the same immediate reaction as Bill - Isn't a former SG now arguing the case for DC? Is his relationship with longstanding non appointee staff or legacy staff bringing this about?

[Rob P.]

Reading thru the brief shows that the Gov't is afraid that a lot of federal gun laws will be overturned with this case and they are afraid of that. Particularly, those that govern NFA weapons in this country.

The brief is an attempt to sway the court on emotion rather than law. Not saying that such a tactic won't work, but that's the nutshell line of the brief.

"Don't overturn the ban because doing so might invalidate ALL federal gun bans."

Bushwah. The second amendment is there specifically to prevent the fedgov from enacting these types of bans. Even if reasonable because "shall not be infringed" means NO. Refusing to overturn the ban means repeal of the amendment without proper constitutional ratification or oversight.

[hoffmang]

Bill,

I doubt this can be withdrawn. This was not a low level decision at all. Mr. Bush and his direct team were certainly briefed on this.

Gotta love Statist Republicans. We like guns but we like BATF control better!

-Gene

[AfricanHunter]

Hell, I supply the 21yo Scotch if it will help any! :43:

Hell, I'll pitch in a case of 32 yo if it will make a difference

[Can'thavenuthingood]

So if this is remanded back to the DC Circuit, it seems to be opening the door to handgun bans across the country. Thinking being that the 2nd does not apply to handguns, and longguns have been approved for home defense IAW 2nd Amendment, so says SCOTUS.

Do I have that incorrect?

Vick

[Solidmch]

So Bush is basically saying what Brady says's? Its an individule right, but we will infringe on it anyway! :no:

[Sleepy1988]

Unfortunately, the Solicitor General holds a little extra sway with SCOTUS than the average Amici. That said though - this is a case with very little comparable history - so we may yet still get what we want.

The good - we may get 9-0 on individual rights.

The bad, we might lose 5-4 that the case should be remanded to the district court- which is not our friend - for further fact finding.

Which facts need to be found, no one knows...

-Gene



The district court isn't our friend even though they are the ones who struck the ban down in the first place?

[Californio]

Bush tried to put Ms. Myers on the Court and the Party raised hell and got her name withdrawn, can we raise hell and get this thing withdrawn?

When both major political parties see the Constitution as an impediment to their Power (control of the people), we are really in a pickle.

[SemiAutoSam]

This is the #1 reason to put Ron Paul in the White House.

When both major political parties see the Constitution as impediment to their Power (control of the people), we are really in a pickle.

[Blackflag]

When both major political parties see the Constitution as impediment to their Power (control of the people), we are really in a pickle.

Word.

[Californio]

Word.

Mr. Gates has not provided a correction or help function for poor parents that got up before sunrise and drove a gaggle of pre-pubescent girls to a Soccer Tournament, its called Totally Brain Dead.:D

[outersquare]

you know, i was intent on voting republican for the pres election, but god damn, is there anything that bush won't f--k up?? What the hell is the point of voting republican if they just sh-t on your rights anyways. .

[N6ATF]

I knew before he became president that it simply is not in his nature.

[aileron]

I have reposted parts of this thread on NorthEastShooters.

To hoffmang, bwiese and Librarian, I have quoted you over there. Hope that doesn't offend. Just thought we should get the word out on other boards.

If you don't want your sigs used, I will remove them. Let me know.

[hoffmang]

The district court isn't our friend even though they are the ones who struck the ban down in the first place?

Your missing something. We lost in the District Court. That loss was overturned at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It will take us 3-5 years to get back to SCOTUS assuming we lose at the District and win at the Court of Appeals again.

Does that make more sense?

Aileron - I want my sig used - maybe in bold...

-Gene

[Fjold]

Drop a line to

Office of the Chairman
Mike Duncan, RNC Chairman
Phone: 202-863-8700
Fax: 202-863-8820
Email: Chairman@gop.com

Here's mine:


I sent one also

[outersquare]

I sent one also

yes, same here

[hoffmang]

NRA isn't pleased either:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10481

Saturday, January 12, 2008

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

[artherd]

And NRA is kid-gloving at that.

Gene- I like your new signature with links.

[Charliegone]

Not surprised one bit...I kept praying that the Bush administration wouldn't screw this up...oh well.:rolleyes::mad:

[SemiAutoSam]

This case and all of the gun bans over the years really seem like a roller coaster.

I'm just about to ask the park administrator to stop the ride.

I feel sick to my stomach. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/puke.gif

[trashman]

This case and all of the gun bans over the years really seem like a roller coaster.

Sigh. I think the correct term is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory"...

--Neill

[jjperl]

not to mention the overthrow of the CA AW ban is also potentially screwed. SOB :mad:

[Grouch]

I'm still suprised people thought we had a chance to begin with. :(

[383green]

Let's not all cry into our beer until SCOTUS delivers their verdict, OK? A brief was filed. So? Lots of briefs were filed. This one may have come from a more influential source, but then for all we know, the judges will see this as the blatant political maneuvering that it is, be annoyed by it, and then get swayed even further in the direction that we want. Or maybe they'll vote 9-0 that the 2nd is a collective right. We won't know what'll happen until it happens, and it's entirely beyond our control at this point, anyway.

[hoffmang]

We're going to get a 9-0 individual right which is a very good thing. The problem is that we've been set back 5+ years on what that right means if it doesn't at least mean that categorical bans are off the table...

-Gene

[mcubed4130]

Wonderful... Pathetic corrupt government officials... gee... how UN-UN-COMMON.

-M3

[spencerhut]

I'm sick . . . I had to take heartburn pills . . . the actions against the people our corrupt Federal and State government officials take literally making me sick. I'm a reasonable guy, I don't get worked up that easy. But our elected officials are, and have been getting away with murder for years.

It's the whole frog in the pot of boiling water scenario. Are there so few of us feeling the heat from this? I hate using terms like "sheeple", but I am starting to feel that I live with 99% sheeple all the time. No one seems to know this is going on, even hunting buddies have to be educated on the issue. Even then many of them think it's no big deal. No one gets it. No one understands the rights our founding fathers gave us are intertwined and inseparable at our peril. If I hear one more person say the people of the United States want the federal government to (take your pick) I may just loose it. I want the federal government to shrink back to it's 1903 size. Anybody else?

[SemiAutoSam]

1848 for me. This would put us way before the corruption of the 14th and 16th Amendment and the Act of 1871.

I want the federal government to shrink back to it's 1903 size. Anybody else?

[MT1]

Disgusting.

I have said this for years - no matter democrat or republican, none of the politicians or people in power want the commoners to have guns, it's as simple as that. That's not even a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory type thought anymore, our rights are being struck down and people are too blind to see it.

I love the quote that I saw somewhere else on this forum talking about how with the 2nd amendment being erased from the bill of rights, how long until they decide that the 1st amendment should be ignored too?

[Wulf]

We're going to get a 9-0 individual right which is a very good thing. The problem is that we've been set back 5+ years on what that right means if it doesn't at least mean that categorical bans are off the table...

-Gene

Would not a heavily weighted decision like that have an immediate effect at a whole variety of levels?

- Anti-legislators would have the wind taken out of their sails and the people opposing them would have another arrow to shoot.

- Judges overseeing cases on the way up would be motivated to incorporate the decision early rather than get overturned later.

- DAs could see it coming and elect not to prosecute on any kind of simple possession of a militia'ish weapon without an underlieing "real" crime (see Corwin's case).

- Even things like corporate anti gun policies could seem some rewriting.

There's a lot of incentive not to violate a persons rights at all levels of government and industry. But the gun situation has become obtuse in the sense that there's a lot of law and policy that would be violations under a strong individual rights 2nd decision. Seems like there would be a lot of financial, and political motivation to be ahead of the repeal of the bad laws instead of behind them.

[bg]

I seem to remember though I'm probably mistaken, that the NRA didn't
want this to go before the Supreme Court. Maybe they had a notion this
is what the Gov might try to pull...?

[Blackflag]

D
I have said this for years - no matter democrat or republican, none of the politicians or people in power want the commoners to have guns, it's as simple as that.

Word.

[hoffmang]

1. This is not the harm the NRA was worried about.

2. There is much that is very good if the Supreme Court were to just agree with the SG. The major issue is that this is an attempt to insert low scrutiny and certainly to delay finality on some of the core issues by years.

-Gene

[AngelDecoys]

2. There is much that is very good if the Supreme Court were to just agree with the SG. The major issue is that this is an attempt to insert low scrutiny and certainly to delay finality on some of the core issues by years. -Gene

Concur.

Having the court decide the 2nd is an individual right is plenty. Enough to make Silveira moot here in the 9th.

No one has ever said Heller would be the end to the fight. The SG's brief just points to further litigation for 14th amendment incorporation and clarification.

Even the 1st took 80 years and a slew of judicial review for it to be clearly defined, and incorporated into the 14th.

Son of Heller, or the Grandchildren of Heller will further define the position. Not a big surprise to me.

[Blackflag]

Having the court decide the 2nd is an individual right is plenty.

Having them say it's an individual right, but subject to only intermediate scrutiny is not much different from saying there is no individual right. Either way, it's going to end up with new restrictions like the D.C. law.

And I seriously doubt there's going to be a series of cases, since the supreme court almost never deals with the 2nd. My opinion is that it's win or lose on this case.

[VegasND]

OK, SAS, explain why 1848, this is several years before Dred Scott and the fallout from that, but I'd like to hear why you pick
that particular year. Could it be a particular problem with Zachary Taylor?


1848 for me. This would put us way before the corruption of the 14th and 16th Amendment and the Act of 1871.

[Scarecrow Repair]

OK, SAS, explain why 1848, this is several years before Dred Scott and the fallout from that, but I'd like to hear why you pick
that particular year. Could it be a particular problem with Zachary Taylor?

The joker in me wants to say it's because the only part of the lower 48 states left out of the current political boundaries is the Gadsen purchase of lower New Mexico and Arizona :-) But I suspect it has a lot more to do with financial matters, the gold standard, national bank, something along those lines, or possibly just more centralized federalized government in general. It can't be just the two amendments, since those didn't come until 1865.

Sam, you ought to let this one ride for a while, see if anyone can guess it. An interesting date and nice sparse comments to fuel the curiousity.

[AngelDecoys]

1848 for me. This would put us way before the corruption of the 14th and 16th Amendment and the Act of 1871.

True, there was a time when it was uncommon to see anyone from the federal level. On anything.

Got me on the 1848 question.
1 - Gold found in CA. End of the War with Mexico
2 - Zachary Talyor became President
3 - Wisconsin becomes 30th state
4 - Wyatt Earp born
5 - Establishment of the UC system?
I'll go with my #6- 1st Pre-Woman's Nationwide Tupperware party held. Also called 'Seneca Falls Convention' for woman's rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848

Having them say it's an individual right, but subject to only intermediate scrutiny is not much different from saying there is no individual right. Either way, it's going to end up with new restrictions like the D.C. law.

You didn't think 1 decision is just going to 'declare the 2nd Amendment an individual right' and invalidate a bunch of laws? If it is declared an individual right, one can only surmise that the government would suggest some guidlines be made on scope, role and regulations. Especially on just simply invalidating NFA laws...

Of course, the Supremes may just ignore all of it and state any number of things.

And I seriously doubt there's going to be a series of cases, since the supreme court almost never deals with the 2nd. My opinion is that it's win or lose on this case.

You may be right on that. Heller could, on the other hand, open the door wide open for further cases.... The NRA and Republicans play defense on the issue. Suggestions of bans, create loyal voters and fund raisers for both. I've often wondered if they beniefit too much by keeping the wedge issue alive.

Ground can only be taken when on the offensive. Something not taken often enough. Tired of always being on the defensive.

[Fate]

Guess I'm a "cup's half full" kind of guy. This latest move just shows how scared #$%^less the .govs are about their chances at keeping the lid on this.

Stand strong, brothers!

[VegasND]

Guess I'm a "cup's half full" kind of guy. This latest move just shows how scared #$%^less the .govs are about their chances at keeping the lid on this.

Stand strong, brothers!

I definitely hope you're right! I am hoping SCOTUS blows some dust off of the BOR!

[Blackflag]

You didn't think 1 decision is just going to 'declare the 2nd Amendment an individual right' and invalidate a bunch of laws? If it is declared an individual right, one can only surmise that the government would suggest some guidlines be made on scope, role and regulations. Especially on just simply invalidating NFA laws...

I don't think so. The reason I say that is... ok, it's an individual right. However, all the existing laws (probably) already meet intermediate scrutiny. The NFA. The Brady law. It's a right, but we can restrict it. It's a wash.

The bigger question is: what NEW laws would also meet intermediate scrutiny? A federal level law like the D.C. law.. ?



You may be right on that. Heller could, on the other hand, open the door wide open for further cases.... The NRA and Republicans play defense on the issue. Suggestions of bans, create loyal voters and fund raisers for both. I've often wondered if they beniefit too much by keeping the wedge issue alive.

Ground can only be taken when on the offensive. Something not taken often enough. Tired of always being on the defensive.

I agree. It has to be fought sometime. But there is a lot to lose here. :chris:

[AngelDecoys]

I don't think so. The reason I say that is... ok, it's an individual right. However, all the existing laws (probably) already meet intermediate scrutiny. The NFA. The Brady law. It's a right, but we can restrict it. It's a wash.

The bigger question is: what NEW laws would also meet intermediate scrutiny? A federal level law like the D.C. law.. ?

Good points. I'll have to read the briefs again and consider it. Fortunately, its a brief, not a ruling. The decision will be narrow however its decided. My guess is it will not change things too much either way.

PS - I always liked FDR's threat of increasing the size of the court if they didn't want to play ball. ;)

Any more ideas on 1848?

[Blackflag]

Good points. I'll have to read the briefs again and consider it. Fortunately, its a brief, not a ruling. The decision will be narrow however its decided. My guess is it will not change things too much either way.

PS - I always liked FDR's threat of increasing the size of the court if they didn't want to play ball. ;)

Any more ideas on 1848?

Yeah, it's all speculation until they decide.

Your FDR/1848 discussion is interesting... Because the big turning point for me was the expansion of the Commerce Clause in the 30's. That's when the federal government started passing sweeping laws and taking away state's right. In fact, that's the only way the federal government is able to pass federal gun laws at all.

And the way they got the supreme court to open up the floodgates of the commerce clause was FDR strong-arming the court with the threat of increasing the size...

[hoffmang]

The history on all of this is nasty. We're fighting the New Deal, right here, right now on Gun Control. Add that to all of the anti-black, anti-hispanic, and anti-chinese gun control and you've got the entire mold of the tyranny against us (thanks KKK!).

Be careful being racist - it just might let utopianists turn our Republic into a tyranny of the majority prepped for just the right "Leader" to come along...

Handgun bans for everybody as long as we have bolt action rifles sayeth the ATF and DOJ...

-Gene

[Rob P.]

IThe bigger question is: what NEW laws would also meet intermediate scrutiny? A federal level law like the D.C. law.. ?

I believe that the level of scrutiny should be strict scrutiny and not "intermediate" (which I take to mean compelling interest). The second says "shall not be infringed" which means that it shouldl require more than a compelling reason to "infringe". Thus the heightened level to strict scrutiny.

The big problem here is that we're not scoring the fight but moaning about the individual "blows" that are happening. Left jab "we're losing"! Return uppercut "WE'RE WINNING!!!" Left jab again "Oh no, we're losing...." Etc. WE need to focus on the whole issue and not who is submitting a brief and what they're saying.

I've never thought that the decision will be as clean and decisive as some have said it will be. It will be a divided opinion. How divided and where the division will be is anyone's guess.

[Blackflag]

True.

Let me muddy the waters a little with something I haven't heard people talking about yet.

It's possible for the states to overrule the U.S. Constitution, in a sense, if they afford their citizens greater rights than the U.S. It's 'possible' that if the supreme court shot down the individual right, or opened to door for a federal law like the D.C. ban - that a pro-gun right state could amend its constitution to provide for specific rights to own/carry handguns. If things go very wrong in this case, I suspect we would see something like that. It's weird that I haven't heard anybody point that out, though. Like they're trying to keep that quiet to not get the bug in people's ears.

[Blackflag]

I believe that the level of scrutiny should be strict scrutiny and not "intermediate" (which I take to mean compelling interest).

I totally agree. That's how the 1st Amd. is, no reason this shouldn't be the same.

[AngelDecoys]

PS - I always liked FDR's threat of increasing the size of the court if they didn't want to play ball. ;)

Just for you hoffmang: "The switch in time, that save the 9" - Which I would agree, would not be a good idea regardless of who runs the executive branch. Just a little history kernal from the Bad New Deal Era.

I forget sarcasm doesn't translate well.

Rob P. Thanks for the clarification on 'intermediate'

blackflag. Big difference between 1st issues and 2nd is that 1st has already been incorporated into the 14th. 14th limits states. So 1st is limited from state restrictions while the 2nd is not. More complicated but just different.

[hoffmang]

True.

Let me muddy the waters a little with something I haven't heard people talking about yet.

It's possible for the states to overrule the U.S. Constitution, in a sense, if they afford their citizens greater rights than the U.S. It's 'possible' that if the supreme court shot down the individual right, or opened to door for a federal law like the D.C. ban - that a pro-gun right state could amend its constitution to provide for specific rights to own/carry handguns. If things go very wrong in this case, I suspect we would see something like that. It's weird that I haven't heard anybody point that out, though. Like they're trying to keep that quiet to not get the bug in people's ears.

Black,

In previous posts I had been pointing out (and Glenn Reynolds and others had done the scholarly work too) that if it was a collectivist right then Texas could pass a law or an amendment that everyone with a TX ID or DL was in the Militia and that Federal Firearms Law does not apply in Texas.

Even a bad ruling that is otherwise an individual right only really hurts the places without RKBA in their constitutions.

The good news about this punch being at this stage in the briefs is that there is time for our side to respond to it in our briefs and Amici's briefs.

-Gene

[stag1500]

What Bush giveth with one hand (Chief Justice John Roberts) he taketh with the other (recent US DOJ brief). F*ck!

[Californio]

This is my reply, I urge all Elephants to write to the Party and politely give them a piece of your mind.

Office of the Chairman
Michael Duncan, RNC Chairman
Email chairman@gop.com

Via Email

January 14, 2008

The Solicitor General of the United States on behalf of the Bush Administration just filed an Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Heller (Parker) vs. the District of Columbia.

The Heller Case seeks to overturn the 31 year-old Handgun ban in the District of Columbia.

As a 7th Generation Californian and 10th Generation United States Citizen I am appalled at the actions of the Bush Administration supporting the District of Columbia in this case.

My family has supported conservative causes for generations and this proves to me that The Republican Party is no longer the Party of Individual Rights. The Right of self-defense predates the United States Constitution and any President who cannot deduce from the Founding Documents and the supporting information in the Federalists Papers and other writings of the Founders that “Shall Not be Infringed”, means just what it says, no longer deserves my support.

I realize that a positive ruling in this case scares the Hell out of the Government Class, but it was not long ago in my childhood when I could ride my horse in Southern California with an open carry side arm. Peddle my bicycle down the street with a .22 rifle across the handlebars or purchase ammunition at the Hardware store with my Fathers prior permission.

The Republican White House support for Judicial Activism is shocking and a betrayal of conservative values.

I tender my resignation as a member of the Republican Party.

[AfricanHunter]

Just got this from the NRA. Why no mention of bouncing it back to trial court?

Statement of the National Rifle Association
By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox
On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case
In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents' homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.'s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government's recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is "central to the preservation of liberty." The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban "a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice," the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government's position is also that a "heightened" level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one's own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that "the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment." A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.'s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

www.NRAILA.org

Write Your Representative

Write The Media

Get Involved Locally

Register To Vote

Contribute


Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030

[Piper]

The one thing that never is addressed is carrying a firearm outside of the home for self defense.

All of the "gun" scholars talk about how the second amendment is a individual right to keep, carry and conceal a gun in the home and business. But no one talks about or is apparently afraid to talk about carrying a loaded firearm in public.

If peope were polled, I'll just bet that most of the pople here spend far more time away from home than they spend anywhere on their property. And what about people that live in apartments ? IMO their rights to possession are far more restricted. So, while it's nice that legal scholars are accepting the individual rights position as the "standard model", it appears to me, no one wants to tread into the territory of carrying publically.

As for the Solicitor General chiming in, I think the government is afraid of private possession and losing the control of firearms that they have established over the past 88 years. In fact he refers to federal laws governing possession of firearms and says that the Heller decision shouldn't nullify the current laws on the books. So again the government is spinning the intent of the constitution and claiming that it allows the government to restrict the rights of the people and not restrict government power. How many ways is this just wrong ?

[hoffmang]

This case is intentionally not about carrying/bearing. It's only about keeping arms in the home for self defense. Those other issues are for later.

-Gene

[Piper]

This case is intentionally not about carrying/bearing. It's only about keeping arms in the home for self defense. Those other issues are for later.

-Gene

Understood, but it seems that no matter what forum you hear 2A advocates talk about RKBA (Calguns excepted) it's only about possession in the home or business.

Example, I have a copy of the DVD entitled "In Search of the Second Amendment." Now I may be missing something, but all they talk about is RKBA as it refers to the home or business. And in fact, at one point it's indicated that there is precedence for regulating concealed carry. However, no one talks about that precedence in the context of states making the laws back in the 1830's and the laws never being challenged. So, what's up with that ?

[hoffmang]

There are two issues with "bear."

1. If we emphasized "bear" in the initial push then we have to more seriously listen the asinine argument that "bear" is strictly military. Focusing initially on "keep" means that we focus on the weakest link in the collectivist argument.

2. "Bear" is going to be subject to time place and manner restrictions. It's likely constitutional to bar open carry but allowed shall issue concealed carry while barring concealed carry w/o a permit. Bearing while under the influence is likely prohibitable and I expect that you're going to be limited from bearing into some public meetings or meetings of legislatures or courts.

As such, when there is no precedent, keep it simple. Once there is precedent one can start getting into the more nuanced arguments.

-Gene

[Piper]

There are two issues with "bear."

1. If we emphasized "bear" in the initial push then we have to more seriously listen the asinine argument that "bear" is strictly military. Focusing initially on "keep" means that we focus on the weakest link in the collectivist argument.

2. "Bear" is going to be subject to time place and manner restrictions. It's likely constitutional to bar open carry but allowed shall issue concealed carry while barring concealed carry w/o a permit. Bearing while under the influence is likely prohibitable and I expect that you're going to be limited from bearing into some public meetings or meetings of legislatures or courts.

As such, when there is no precedent, keep it simple. Once there is precedent one can start getting into the more nuanced arguments.

-Gene


So when does "shall not be infringed" really mean what it says?

[pnkssbtz]

So when does "shall not be infringed" really mean what it says?And that is the crux of the 2nd amendment.

[hoffmang]

So when does "shall not be infringed" really mean what it says?

When we're done defending our rights - just like we've always had to with just about every guarantee in the Bill of Rights. Nobody said a Republic for the people would be easy.

-Gene

[aileron]

When we're done defending our rights - just like we've always had to with just about every guarantee in the Bill of Rights. Nobody said a Republic for the people would be easy.

-Gene

Yup and my backside hurts.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Gene-

or anyone else with the background-

What can a small man like me do about such an outrageous action on the part of the White house?

what would be the proper "man on the street" reaction?

[GuyW]

...Your FDR/1848 discussion is interesting... Because the big turning point for me was the expansion of the Commerce Clause in the 30's. That's when the federal government started passing sweeping laws and taking away state's right.

An abrupt turning point for big government was in 1863 (IIRC) with Lincoln issuing an order for the Army to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Ct, for not rubber-stamping his unConstitutional actions.

I have a dream that someday the Lincoln Memorial will be dynamited by government decree...

[hoffmang]

Anthony,

Speak to every (R) you know at the state and federal level including the party and explain how bad the politics on this are.

-Gene

[bulgron]

So when does "shall not be infringed" really mean what it says?

It took us nearly 90 years to get to where we are with gun laws in this country. Over the course of those years, the courts have misinterpreted the meaning and intent of the second amendment, and then misinterpreted the misinterpretation, and on and on until the 2A is effectively a dead letter in judicial circles. That story, all by itself, is an example of how this Republic can fall and it's people delivered into servitude.

90 years to lose nearly all of our right to keep and bear arms.

I think that it's asking too much to overturn all of that in one fell swoop. But many decades from now, hopefully, the nation will have returned to where it's supposed to be relative to firearms and the right to self defense.

Without question, this will not be an easy fight.

[RAD-CDPII]

WTF, how did I miss this thread over the weekend??? Let's just hope that SCOTUS takes this and goes in our favor. If they send it back, just think of the implications of Hill or Obama winning, appointing a new judge or two and it coming back. Then we do not stand a chance of a snow ball in you YKW!!! This su**s.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

, just think of the implications of Hill or Obama winning, appointing a new judge or two and it coming back.

"I have ten thousand for defense, but none to surrender; if you want our weapons come and get them".
Author: Unattributed Author
Source: a response of an ancient general

[mcubed4130]

Nice to see the independent sites covering this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/former_poll.asp?POLL_ID=2531

-M3

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Lets see if any of the Republican candidates use this. It would be a very smart move to be outraged over the Presidents position.

From what I've read on many different boards, people are extremely upset and agitated over the SG's amicus. Republicans feel betrayed, and rightfully so.

I'm sure Gura is reworking parts of his brief to more directly deal with the standards of review.

Undoubtedly, DC will use the SG's brief in their arguments before the court.

[AngelDecoys]

Lets see if any of the Republican candidates use this. It would be a very smart move to be outraged over the Presidents position.

Ron Paul has already discusssed this case. He made a statement regarding the case when the DC ban was passed, and made another statement when visiting a gun store in New Hampshire.

He basically said, "When you pass laws that are blantently contrary to the Bill of Rights, you are basically asking for them to end up being decided on at the highest level. (30 years ago)"

FYI - Ron Paul owns no firearms himself yet is passionate in defending rights he does not use himself. Rare in and of itself. Incidently, If I remember correctly, he's the only candidate with an A+ from the NRA.

I should note I'm on the fence with regards to primaries, generally thinking they are irrelevent to residents in CA.

At fault here myself for going off topic, someone should probably start another thread for candidates' positions on 2nd amendment issues.

[dixieD]

This is the kinda thing that needs to light up the R's fundraising phonelines NOW.

Agreed. I would like to see this issue get into the presidential election sooner rather than later. I think letter writing asking the candidates to give their positions on this case, and the FDOJ amicus brief is needed. We should also be peppering the various media outlets with questions that should be asked in the upcoming debates. When Heller was first announced I wrote a bunch of letters making this point. I will do so again now.

[Blackflag]

If no other reason than this - I don't understand how anybody on this site can't vote for Ron Paul.

[bulgron]

If no other reason than this - I don't understand how anybody on this site can't vote for Ron Paul.

Hey, I went out of my way to register as a Republican (normally I'm Declines to State) just so I can vote for Paul in the primaries.

So we're not all hopeless, you know. :)

[simonov]

For years I've been telling anyone who would listen that the Republicans are not the friends of gun rights and the Bush Administration is actively hostile to gun rights. Republican guntards never wanted to hear it, they were too busy drinking the Kool-Aid.

I wonder what it will finally take to get them to listen to me?

[mcubed4130]

For years I've been telling anyone who would listen that the Republicans are not the friends of gun rights and the Bush Administration is actively hostile to gun rights. Republican guntards never wanted to hear it, they were too busy drinking the Kool-Aid.

I wonder what it will finally take to get them to listen to me?

People will stop drinking the Kool-Aid from both parties; after a succession of several of our cities are nuked... and the people that remain are forced to wake up that all that is being talked about on the nightly news is - "blue bad red good" "red bad blue good".

-M3

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Ron Paul has already discusssed this case. He made a statement regarding the case when the DC ban was passed, and made another statement when visiting a gun store in New Hampshire.

He basically said, "When you pass laws that are blantently contrary to the Bill of Rights, you are basically asking for them to end up being decided on at the highest level. (30 years ago)"

FYI - Ron Paul owns no firearms himself yet is passionate in defending rights he does not use himself. Rare in and of itself. Incidently, If I remember correctly, he's the only candidate with an A+ from the NRA.

I should note I'm on the fence with regards to primaries, generally thinking they are irrelevent to residents in CA.

At fault here myself for going off topic, someone should probably start another thread for candidates' positions on 2nd amendment issues.

I agree that RP would best preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, but in all fairness, he made those comments prior to the SG's amicus. I'm talking about making this specific point an issue. I want to see some outrage!

[paradox]

People will stop drinking the Kool-Aid from both parties; after a succession of several of our cities are nuked... and the people that remain are forced to wake up that all that is being talked about on the nightly news is - "blue bad red good" "red bad blue good".


Ahhh, but who set off the nuke? ;)

Que Jericho theme...

[mcubed4130]

Ahhh, but who set off the nuke? ;)

Que Jericho theme...

My thinking exactly... no one will react if it's only one... they will just blame whoever is in power at the time.

-M3

[paradox]

My thinking exactly... no one will react if it's only one... they will just blame whoever is in power at the time.

-M3

Enough material to make a nuke is rare enough that multiple detonations would narrow the field of perps considerably. And that’s before we get into isotope analysis which would show who’s reactor the source material came from...

[AngelDecoys]

Enough material to make a nuke is rare enough that multiple detonations would narrow the field of perps considerably. And that’s before we get into isotope analysis which would show who’s reactor the source material came from...

mcubed4130, paradox. Not really the point of this thread but.........

FYI - There were something like 200 suitcase nukes that mysteriously disappeared from the former Soviet Union a few years ago. They still have not been tracked down. And as our borders are wide open.........

If one of those took out NY, SF, LA, or Chicago, would the US figure it out? Doubt it. Americans are quick to point blame outward. Apparently 9-11 wasn't a BIG enough wake-up call for the 1 million Iraqis who died. I still remember the news that day as Palestinian children were cheering. :(

FreedomIsNotFree: Sorry I have no outrage left. Nothing the GOP does these days is much of a surprise. Just like the saber rattling with Iran, I'm only wondering if we're heading in there before the next election, or after the next President takes office.

Same with the Heller case. The Conservative portion of the Supreme Court is most likely to state that the 2nd is an individual right. And it is also the most likely restrict those rights.

Sorry, this thread is making me ill.

Here's an article from the NRA's previous President Sandy Froman (also an attorney)
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SandyFroman/2008/01/15/candidates_must_trump_justice_department_in_dc_gun _case

[Blackflag]

:offtopic:

[bg]

Other major cities join the fight for keeping the D.C ban.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/347493_scotus16.html?source=mypi
excerpt
WASHINGTON -- Seattle, Milwaukee and other large U.S. cities are warning the Supreme Court that gun-control laws around the nation would be jeopardized if the justices decide to eliminate the local District of Columbia ban on handguns.

In a legal brief filed with the high court, the cities, joined by the nonpartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors, argue that they suffer "disproportionately" from firearm violence and should be able to enact reasonable restrictions on the weapons.

"Major American cities ... bear the brunt of the problem," said the legal brief, signed by Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr and lawyers for the other cities. The brief was primarily written by lawyers with the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, a group that aims to prevent gun crimes.
This is the group who has been helping local cities to pass bans on
ammo and the like. They're not trying to prevent "gun crime"
but to end ALL private lawful ownership or firearms period !

Check it out..!
http://www.lcav.org/about/index.asp
Our Philosophy

To end the epidemic of gun violence in this country, we need laws and policies that work. LCAV focuses on policy reform at the state and local level, marshaling the expertise of the legal community to help transform America’s gun policies from the grassroots up. Strong state and local measures address concerns of specific communities and regions, improve community health and safety, fill gaps in federal policy, and act as a catalyst for the broader reforms our country needs.

Community education and action are critical to achieving sound gun laws and policies. Lawyers bring an essential set of skills to this challenge. By making complex legal and policy issues understandable, conducting legal research, analyzing existing and emerging policy strategies, and generating model regulations, LCAV informs and educates communities, and empowers advocates and governments to pursue effective measures that are legally defensible.
Why State and Local Reform Is Important

The best opportunities for innovative policymaking often lie outside Washington, D.C., in cities, counties and states where activists and public officials frequently have more power to bring about change. Polls consistently confirm that most Americans want stronger gun laws. But federal reform, even under the most favorable political conditions, is difficult to achieve.

In the absence of comprehensive federal regulation, it is up to state and local governments to adopt policies to prevent gun violence. The future of the gun violence prevention movement depends on building grassroots strength to achieve reform at the state and local level so that, ultimately, nationwide solutions will be more easily achievable. When cities, counties and states adopt gun regulations, they not only address local and regional concerns, they show their representatives in Washington that there is a base of support for regulating firearms.
It's sad they only address "gun violence" what ever that is, but say little or nothing about CRIMINAL VIOLENCE...I guess that doesn't meet their agenda.

Regardless there's a lot at stake here on this case.

[Librarian]

Sent a letter (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=932838&postcount=27) to the GOP the other day - actually got an answer, though not much of one. Thank you for contacting the Republican National Committee. Your comments will be included in the daily report to the Chairman. We appreciate your interest.They could have round-filed it; I don't suppose this is necessarily a lot better.

[hoffmang]

I got the same response today as well.

-Gene

[GW]

Ditto here too

[rkt88edmo]

WSJ chimes in:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096108857304967.html
Misfire at Justice
January 22, 2008; Page A18
The Second Amendment's right to bear arms has rarely been considered by the Supreme Court, but this year the Court is hearing a case that could become a Constitutional landmark. So it is nothing short of astonishing, and dispiriting, that the Bush Justice Department has now weighed in with an amicus brief that is far too clever by half.

[xrMike]

How did I miss this thread?!?! So, let me pose the obvious questions here...

How does voting for a Republican president make sense for us American gunnies? (notice that "American" comes before "gunnies"; that's an important distinction) I thought the only influence the prez had in these matters was to potentially nominate a Supreme Court candidate, who would then potentially be approved for the position by the Senate... Hmmmmm...

How can all those "potentialities" be more important than a real, live actuality like this one?

Seems to me that right here we have the perfect example of a Republican president screwing us over, and in a way that totally negates any potential (or real) supreme court candidates he might nominate.

In other words, here's a real live actual event that totally blows that whole line of reasoning (casting your vote based on "potential events") right out of the freaking water.

[DrjonesUSA]

How did I miss this thread?!?! So, let me pose the obvious questions here...

How does voting for a Republican president make sense for us American gunnies? (notice that "American" comes before "gunnies"; that's an important distinction) I thought the only influence the prez had in these matters was to potentially nominate a Supreme Court candidate, who would then potentially be approved for the position by the Senate... Hmmmmm...

How can all those "potentialities" be more important than a real, live actuality like this one?

Seems to me that right here we have the perfect example of a Republican president screwing us over, and in a way that totally negates any potential (or real) supreme court candidates he might nominate.

In other words, here's a real live actual event that totally blows that whole line of reasoning (casting your vote based on "potential events") right out of the freaking water.


Let me make a few points:

1) Bush actually HAS appointed some pretty good justices to the Supreme Court, that is not a guess nor "potentiality". (Is that a word?)

2) What is our alternative, or what do you suggest: voting democrat?

I agree that most politicians aren't worth a pile of rat turds, both repubs AND dems, particularly dems, but repubs are the lesser of two evils, for sure.

The way I see it, if you vote Republican, we take the chance of getting stabbed in the back like this but make the definite gains of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

If you vote democrat, you are absolutely voting AGAINST your gun rights, as well as many other rights.

Until a third party candidate like Ron Paul becomes very viable, you better keep voting Republican, with very few exceptions as there are SOME pro-gun and quasi-conservative democrats.

The moral of the story is, vote Ron Paul!!!

[xrMike]

Let me make a few points:

1) Bush actually HAS appointed some pretty good justices to the Supreme Court, that is not a guess nor "potentiality". (Is that a word?)

2) What is our alternative, or what do you suggest: voting democrat?

3) The moral of the story is, vote Ron Paul!!!

1) Okay, maybe so. But aren't the supposed benefits (to us) of his SC nominees being totally negated by this latest development in the Heller case, perpetrated by his own administration???? (And Yes, it is a word, meaning "a possibility" :D)

2) H*ll no! Voting Dem is never an option. I guess I'm just expressing my increasing frustration that voting Republican now seems an equally-crappy option.

3) Heh, you're preaching to the choir now. :D

[DrjonesUSA]

1) Okay, maybe so. But aren't the supposed benefits (to us) of his SC nominees being totally negated by this latest development in the Heller case, perpetrated by his own administration???? (And Yes, it is a word, meaning "a possibility" :D)


That's been hashed out a bit in this thread....you should take some time to sift through this thread & see what the legal minds here have to say about it.

Basically, the SGs opinion does certainly carry some weight with the SC, but exactly how much weight is yet to be seen. The case is scheduled to be heard in March.


3) Heh, you're preaching to the choir now. :D

GOOD!!! Hope you registered Republican yesterday so that you can vote for him in the Primary!!!!!

[yellowfin]

The problem lies in that the non-strong pro 2A crowd would likely reject Dr. Paul and we lose totally. What did we get so wrong as to having ourselves put in this position in the first place?

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Rep. Virgil Goode To The Bush White House: Withdraw Your Brief

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) has sent the following letter to the White
House asking them to undo the huge harm they have caused the Second
Amendment with the brief they filed in the DC gun ban case.

-------------------------------------

January 22, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme
Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of
virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court
determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of
constitutional review.

If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including
hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides
-- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the
Second Amendment as an individual right.

I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this
unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects
the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Virgil Goode

-------------------------------------

Rep. Goode is following up his action by circulating the letter among
his colleagues. He is asking other members of Congress to add their
signatures in anticipation of sending President Bush another copy of
the letter.

Your help is needed immediately to convince your Representative to
join with Rep. Goode.

Please go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message
urging your Rep. to be a part of this important initiative. If you
prefer to contact your Representative in another fashion, here is the
text we are using:

Dear Representative:

Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a letter to the White
House urging the President to withdraw the Solicitor General's very
ill-advised brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.

Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted about the members of
the House who have joined with Representative Goode.

Thank you very much.


****************************

Of course, GOA is actively working the Heller case as well. In fact,
just today our legal and educational arm, Gun Owners Foundation,
officially notified the Court of its intent to file an amicus brief.
We'll be certain to make that brief available to you as soon as it
is filed. In the meantime, last week GOA issued a press release
blasting the Solicitor General's action that was picked up by
numerous media outlets across the country. The press release is
posted at http://www.gunowners.org/pr0801.htm on the GOA website.

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to
gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=95170412&queueid=1686174491.

[yellowfin]

Is there a way to get the solicitor general fired for this? It seems there hasn't been any shortage of enthusiasm from the opposition party to fire any Bush appointee or cabinet member for any reason or no reason at all, so why don't we put that to good use? GET RID OF THAT SLIMEBALL NOW.