Posted on 01/12/2008 2:05:02 AM PST by Tahts-a-dats-ago
Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it. Some quotes:
(Excerpt) Read more at armsandthelaw.com ...
>>
“...the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review...”
>>
Career lawyers at Justice have to cavil over verbage to protect machine gun bans and other military-grade type weapons.
Wouldn’t want any of those Islamo-Fascists getting a hold of serious hardware, now would we! /sarc
The good news is it does acknowledge that the Second Amendment is an individual right; the bad news is that it appears to go wholesale against the plain language of "shall not be infringed."
So in the same breath the gummint acknowledges the right then concludes it can take that right away. Curious.
“From a quick look at this, it does appear that our Justice Department is indeed arguing in favor of gun control.”
DOJ is full of Klintonoid scum. No surprises there.
The last DOJ pettifogger I spoke with was bragging about attending a Sharpton rally.
Let me guess ...
half of the population is under the influence of drugs, and the other half is under the influence of crooked and deviate politicians?
Lock & load
The 2nd Amendment is about power. Armed weapon power. In the hands of the citizens. Not for hunting, or home invasion, but to attack and overthow, by violence, the government, if it should come to that.
Citizens logically need the weapons that can do that. Militia/military weapons.
"WHY VOTE REPUBLICAN? Bush DOJ betrays gun rights. "There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup." Is this too harsh? Possibly, but Dave Hardy would know, wouldn't he?"
Agreed.
Well alrighty then. Perhaps states can start banning abortions now. After all, it is a “constitutional right”.
You are an idiot, you are banned from ever speaking in DC.
"It depends on what the meaning if "is" is."
DOJ works for Bush, who will doubtless instantly tell them their brief is unacceptable to him. Right?
GUNS UP!
Right you are.
“DOJ works for Bush, who will doubtless instantly tell them their brief is unacceptable to him. Right?”
Uhhh...yeah, that’s what he’ll do. Right after he finishes signing another amnesty bill and appointing some more flaming queens to ambassadorships.
Looks like I need to buy more powder and primers. Looks like I’m gonna need them come March...
This is just icing on a very large sh*tcake.
Ours is changing from a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” to “for controlling the pesky little people”. The transition is nearly complete. I hope the Supreme Court chooses wisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.