Supreme Court will be taking the issue of the 2nd amendment head on...

[Rich Parsons]

Ok under further reading and understanding this is the arguement to present to the US Supreme Court by the DC of Columbia.

I still do not believe it should be an arguement of not applying at all. If that is true it is a very slippery slope of what does apply and what does not apply. I understand it states State Militia, yet if it comes own to this, then would the states then be required to have a state militia.I am not talking about the National Guard because it has National in the title, it is not a state milita, no matter where the money comes from. in my opion.

 

[Cruentus]

Ok under further reading and understanding this is the arguement to present to the US Supreme Court by the DC of Columbia.

Yes, that is correct. It is just a brief, it is not a ruling. General rule of thumb is that the brief from each side will present an extreme point of view from that side, and a the court will rule in favor of one or the other, but in a more middle of the road, objective format.

The brief sounds really bad, but it doesn't mean crap until the SC rules on it, thank goodness. We just have to hope that the court operates with some integrity.

 

[tellner]

Forget the firearm by Mattel. I'll take one of those Marine Corps bolt guns with the nice glass on top and a new short barreled Mossberg.

 

[Monadnock]

From the firearms coalition:

In typical, "screw your friends and appease your enemies," Republicanfashion, the Bush Justice Department has filed an amicus briefdefending the DC gun ban in the DC v. Heller case currently before theSupreme Court. The Justice Department calls on the Court toacknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right, but asks thatthe Circuit Court's decision in the case be reversed and remanded(thrown out and sent back to the Circuit Court) with instructions todetermine whether DC's laws unreasonably restrict resident's abilityto exercise their rights. It appears that the "pro-gun," RepublicanDepartment of Justice fears that any decision from the Supreme Courtwhich held that banning any class of weapons was an infringement ofthe Second Amendment, might open the door to challenges against banson dreaded machineguns.

It is worth noting that Congress recognized back in 1934 that banningmachineguns would be a violation of the Second Amendment so theyinstead devised a plan whereby they could control such firearms withburdensome taxes and paperwork restrictions. It was not until 1986that the first ever federal firearms ban was enacted when NRA accepteda ban on private purchase or possession of any newly manufacturedmachineguns as an amendment to the McClure-Volkmer, Firearms Owner'sProtection Act. At that time, NRA-ILA chief, Wayne LaPierre declaredthat repeal of the machinegun ban would be NRA's top priority in thenext session of Congress. Even though Mr. LaPierre has been the ChiefExecutive Officer of the organization for more than 15 years now andreceives a compensation totaling more than a million dollars a year,no bill to repeal the '86 ban has ever been put forward by NRA.

If the Supreme Court follows the government's request in this matter,no firm decision about the practical value of the Second Amendmentcould be expected for at least another four years; many thousands ofdollars, and at least two new Justices from now. Republicanpoliticians and operatives across the country need to hear and feelthe wrath of GunVoters over this latest in a long list of betrayalsfrom our oh-so-reliable, pro-gun friends. Write to the President, theVice-President, your Republican Senators and Representatives, yourlocal Republican officials and your County Central Committee and letthem know that your anger will be reflected at the ballot box. Thisis just another example of why Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, MittRomney, and John McCain are completely unacceptable presidentialcandidates and why Republicans are likely to lose the Presidency andadditional Congressional seats due to a poor showing from GunVoters inthe coming elections.

 

[Monadnock]

In other news (or not)

On January 9, a California appeals court struck down San Francisco's
2005 ban on handguns, citing that local governments lack authority
under California law to enact such a ban…Yet while the San Francisco
Chronicle's Bob Egelko covered the story on January 10, I'm having
trouble finding any coverage elsewhere in the media. When searching
Nexis, I found no coverage of the San Francisco gun ban story in the
New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, nor broadcast networks
ABC, CBS, or NBC…



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/01/14/san-francisco-handgun-ban-overturned-msm-yawn

 

[Monadnock]

…So much for the old saw that Republican politicians, if only they
could, would get rid of all of those unconstitutional federal gun
laws, but we just need to be patient until they are in a position to
do so. Now, when a case is before the Supreme Court, and they actually
have a chance (however remote) of striking down those federal gun laws
by convincing the Supreme Court to rule those laws unconstitutional,
we have the US government, in the form of the Bush Administration
controlled Justice Department, chock full of Republican lawyers,
arguing to the Court that all of those federal gun laws are perfectly
constitutional and nothing in the Second Amendment can be used to
strike them down. To the contrary, doing so would be "dangerous"!

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/sr-bad-law.htm

 

[Monadnock]

in a sudden change of events...

Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate say they are behind gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case. The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District's ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years. Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080208/METRO/687727763/1004http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5523693.htmlhttp://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7840090&nav=menu227_2

 

[thardey]

I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Thanks for the update

 

[KenpoTex]

I wonder if this would have happened if it wasn't an election year...

from the same article (emphasis is mine):

The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.

Mrs. Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid, citing their support for banning assault weapons.

and here we see the bull ****. "You can have those, but it's perfectly "reasonable" for us not to allow you to have these."

 

[Monadnock]

You think this would be a key talking point but I haven't heard it come up once in any of the debates...

Here's some more analysis. I think I want to get this book...

On Monday, the brief for Respondent was filed in DC v. Heller, theSupreme Court's case involving the DC handgun ban…The first portionsof each brief raise textual and historical arguments. DC argues thatthe preamble of the Second Amendment ("a well-regulated militia")controls and limits the main clause ("the right of the people"). DCemphasizes that militias are subject to limitless state control. TheHeller brief offers well-known rules of construction from the FoundingEra to argue that a preamble doesn't limit the main clause. Both sidesquote Marbury v. Madison. The Heller brief contains a great deal ofAmerican history, partly based on David Young's new book The Founders'View of the Right to Bear Arms (2007), which presents General Gage'sdisarmament of the citizens of Boston as one of the key causes of thedecision of Americans to finally resort to armed revolution, and asthe kind of abuse which the Founders wanted to prevent in the newnation…http://volokh.com/posts/1202366725.shtml

 

[Monadnock]

Vice President Cheney signed on to a brief filed by a majority ofCongress yesterday that urged the Supreme Court to uphold a rulingthat the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional,breaking with his own administration's official position. Cheneyjoined 55 senators and 250 House members in asking the court to findthat the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possessfirearms and to uphold a lower court's ruling that the D.C. banviolates that right. That position is at odds with the one put forwardby the administration, which angered gun rights advocates when itsuggested that the justices return the case to lower courts forfurther review. In order to make his dramatic break with theadministration, Cheney invoked his rarely used status as part ofCongress, joining the brief as "President of the United States Senate,Richard B. Cheney." It is a position he has used at times to make thepoint that he is sometimes part of the legislative branch andsometimes part of the executive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803802.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.startribune.com/nation/15457966.html

 

[Cruentus]

Wow... I really respect that Mr. Cheney was willing to do that. This is topic is so hot; I really hope that this goes the right way. Losing our 2nd amendment rights as an individual right would lead to the slow but sure desimation of our freedoms in this country. The right to bear arms amounts to so much more in regards to individual freedom that go far beyond the "gun issue." The reason it is so encompassing is because it makes a statement based on principle. If we maintain the individual rights of self-defense and bearing arms, then in principle we are saying that we stand behind inaleinable individual human rights over a collective ideal. In doing so, we remain free. If we abolish this right, then we are saying in principle that we are willing to forego individual rights in favor of a collective ideal. This may seem good on the surface, but history tells us that this is a very dangerous proposition, as we have seen from ancient civilizations to the Stalinism and Nazism, all the way to oppressive regimes that we see today.

If we aren't free, then none of the greater good stuff will matter... and none of it will have a point at all...

C.

 

[Monadnock]

…The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment securesa right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants statesthe power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter viewis called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decisionby the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered intostatehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived atArticle I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the UnitedStates entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approvedthe right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing theright of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. Therewas no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible toa collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contractunderstood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declaredMontana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms… (Third itemon page.)

[URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage[/URL]

 

[MA-Caver]

Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.
Hitler's socialist party when they came into power one of the first things they did was remove all the personal weapons from the German citizens.

Wonder why was that?

 

[KenpoTex]

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage[/URL]

Thanks, that's some very interesting reading.

I'm encouraged that apparently some people do remember the concept of state-sovereignty/state's rights.

One thing's for sure, it'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

 

[KenpoTex]

I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." Heinrich Himmler

 

[grydth]

Ah, the needs based theory...

In the Land of the Free, what I most certainly do not need is a government functionary deciding what I need.

Oh, and "collective rights" translates into "no rights".

 

[Lisa]

I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." Heinrich Himmler

Theres a scary thought. Lets give up your right to bear arms and model yourselves after Nazi Germany.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I was browsing though one of my "quote" files earlier...
Given the "collective rights" theory that many enemies of liberty like to espouse (that is, the theory that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those serving in the military or national-guard), I found this quote particularly thought provoking considering the source.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." Heinrich Himmler

On the collective rights thought, I would not mind having the same weapons the military has. I mean to have laser guided projectiles and the capability to own a tank that is functional. Heck I would buy one and drive it tow work. Talk about an anti-driving-road-rage vehicle.

But those are my thoughts. :angel:

 

[Cryozombie]

I mean to have laser guided projectiles and the capability to own a tank that is functional. Heck I would buy one and drive it tow work. Talk about an anti-driving-road-rage vehicle.

But those are my thoughts. :angel:

Please... you couldn't afford the gas to get it one way.