Posted on 01/12/2008 8:40:25 AM PST by walkerk
Prosecutors from across the country, afraid that an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling could erode state gun laws, on Friday asked the high court to uphold a ban on unlicensed handguns.
...
The prosecutors, led by district attorneys Robert M. Morgenthau of New York County and Kamala D. Harris of San Francisco, say they worry that what applies in Washington might have an impact on their communities.
Assistant District Attorney Mark Dwyer, head of Morgenthau's appeals bureau, said the high court's review of the Second Amendment will be its first since 1939.
"We would like for the court to reverse the D.C. circuit," Dwyer said, "for them to say there is no individual right to possess a gun, that it (the Second Amendment) enables states to arm militias."
"We hope they don't say anyone can have a gun anytime he wants," Dwyer said.
...
The district attorneys, who represent a total of more than 25 million people, come from jurisdictions that include New York, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, San Diego, Oakland and Atlanta.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Politicians make me sick, they all think they know what is best for millions of people whom they never even poll for their wants and needs.
THIS is the direct result of Bloomy’s attack on the Second Amendment. He’s been traveling across the country getting mayors, attorney generals and district attornies to join him in an assault of our Second Amendment right! He can forget his dream to become President.
BUMP!
Another shove in the direction of American Revolution II.
Sad, but probably true.
Dallas and Atlanta? That’s disappointing.
Is is not the duty of the Court to rule on any case by what the Constitution says and means and not by pressure from any group, pro or con?
“Right now, it appears they might not.”
I haven’t kept up with what’s going on in this case. Do you have a link to something that suggests that the Supreme Court will find for an individual right and uphold the lower courts decision that the DC ban is unconstitutional?
A Supreme Court decision should only be for one reason; to compare other laws to determine if they comply with the Constitution. That is the Supreme Court’s sole function.
A majority opinion of attorneys, citizens, or judges does not trump the Constitution. The Constitution provides an amendment process when the nation chooses to install change. The Constitution provides no other vehicle for change.
You gun folks got to see this - you’ll love it - maybe someone can post the pics of this Hello Kitty AR-15 - evil black rifle meets cute and cuddly
http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15-—evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx
And we need to track just who agrees with him, and drive as many of them out of office as we can manage. Does there exist a website which tracks the record of public officials on the issue?? If not, then "there oughta be".
Elections have consequences....
If they are fair and legal. Case in point, this circus going on now, with the media steering the results.
The Usual Suspects ...
“Another nail in the coffin of our republic.”
We’re lawyers we make the laws to our liking, to hell with the Constitution.
There needs to be a ban on lawyers serving in a legislative capacity.
Second, and most important, we hold that individual rights are God-given and predate the Constitution. The 2A only affirms the obvious, in case future governments don't get it. The 2A principle allows unjust law to be overturned if necessary. We don't need no steenking badges.
The 2A principle allows unjust law to be overturned if necessary. We don’t need no steenking badges.
***That there is the beauty of the whole 2nd Amendment. Good post.
Please read the article-not all DA’s are represented in that group, despite what the headline suggests. I, for one, am a deputy DA who is very tough on armed criminals but believes in the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment.
“Some movie producers were just told this week, by three Federal Judges, that they cannot buy advertising for their movie this year. (Because Hillary is running for office.)”
But, of course, this was not a problem when Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 was issued specifically to help defeat Bush in 2004. They should buy the ads anyway — if anyone will sell them — and fight this BS ruling out in court after the fact, like the left always does....
This is what I have been trying to tell my friends , family , and Freepers . Prosecutors have an occupational bias that seems to taint their judgment forever . They come to believe the Constitutional protections are in reality obstacles to good governance . These obstacles are to be chiseled , nibbled , and eroded by constantly pushing the envelopes allowed by the courts . This creep toward totalitarianism is funded of course by the taxpayer . Often both sides of the litigation are publicly funded , with a huge disparity in favor of the government . Look at your own elected officials and judges . I will not vote or support such statists as Specter , Leahey , and Rudy . It is hard to really know the skunks we vote for , ask republicans here in Idaho .I know it is over broad but self preservation requires adoption of expediencies .I consider DOJ , district attorneys ,and all prosecutor positions to be an automatic disquailfier for representative and executive office .
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.