Posted on 01/20/2008 5:31:20 PM PST by Copernicus
If the justices accept that advice when they hear the case in the spring, it could mean additional years of litigation over the controversial Second Amendment and could undo a ruling that was a seminal victory for gun rights enthusiasts.
Some were livid. One conservative Web site said the administration had "blundered in catastrophic fashion," and another turned Clement, usually a pinup for conservative legal scholars, into a digital dartboard. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the Republicans' chief deputy whip, called the brief "just outrageous," and Republican presidential candidate and former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) accused the Justice Department of "overlawyering" the issue.
David B. Kopel, an associate policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that President Bush was elected in part because of the passion of gun rights activists and that "the citizen activists would never have spent all those hours volunteering for a candidate whose position on the constitutionality of a handgun ban was 'maybe.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“We are on the same page ... Here’s some info for anyone else who doesn’t know about Flip’s anti-gun stances ....”
Don’t even have to read it. All I have to know is his stated position these days, turn it 180, and I’ll have his position a year ago. And I say this as someone who has decided Romney’s the only viable option. Ugh. What a disgusting mess.
In the early 1900s, before state and Federal gun laws, when anyone could carry arms without restrictions, the crime rate was really low, something like 200 murders per year in the entire U.S.
Ok - fine. In 1900 the population of the nation was 76 million. Today, in Arizona, where there are liberal gun laws (and very liberal open carry laws), there is a population of 6.1 million but had 465 murders. So....
Anyway, what this is really about is whether the feds or states can put any restrictions on what 'arm' can be owned and on whom may own them, not whether the restrictions are a good idea or not.
Bill didn’t have to because the ban was in effect and didn’t expire until Bush was elected. The question was what would Gore have done, and an executive order was my bet if a bill was not forthcoming preserving the AWB. Remember too, the Dem’s learned that “Gun Control” was a loser; we need to reinforce that fact every chance we get!!!
It makes it hard to have an honest discussion if you make it sound like I've said things I haven't. My reference to due process was regarding laws that restrict a criminal, convicted (hence due process), from owning a firearm.
Sure a court could impose a restriction as part of the individual sentence of someone convicted of particularly heinous felony
And I believe that is the point the solicitor was trying to make, and a distinction that the test Silberman applied did not allow for.
No, I was just delayed at your mom’s place.
“But according to you I am equivalent to a child molester for thinking current gun laws are abusive and un-Constitutional.
You’ve lost your mind. Discussion over.”
No, I have not. You are the one who introduced that into the discussion to make a point. Your point was about free speech but it was a foul tactic.
“And cannons were and are “weapons of extraordinary lethality” as Romney put it, yet those were privately owned at the time the second amendment was written and ratified by the states.”
Most hunting rifles would be considered more lethal to people than the hated “assault weapon.” My bet is the court will continue the status quo and in 10 years we’ll be down to a single shot .410. In 20 years we’ll have no legal arms and will be required to seek travel permits before leaving our community.
He doesn't, and that's a big problem.
“But the discussion here is whether or not the government of the US can constitutionally restrict a type of weapon being owned or who can own it, just as they restrict speech (what can be said/written)?”
Not the same as has been stated by others numerous times. You’re equating the possession of an object with the exercise of speech.
Not much difference between “neutral” and “hostile”, you can’t trust either one!
Well, the thing of that is, our fight is not so much with the President, it is with the Congress, that is where progress can be made to move things forward, and that is why “we” have to turnout in 2008 no matter if it is Mitt or “whomever”.
Does any 2nd amendment supporter really think a Hillary C or Barack would be merely neutral?
Do you really think Cantor or Thompson read the brief and would go on the record opposing wht the brief’s chief concern is - that the test the appeals court applied opens the door to criminals having access to machine guns?
But the decision below if upheld would NOT permit wholesale bans on entire classes of arms for law-abiding citizens who were willing to go through whatever process the government decreed. Which means pistol bans, AWBs, and the 1986 machine gun ban would be overturned.
Ok - so zero restrictions on who may own and what they may own? That’s a yes for you, right?
So is any restriction on choice of arms unconstitutional?
It makes it clear that a ban on a whole category of arms is unacceptable, while admitting that its ruling would have no effect on a host of other restrictions.
What part of “shall not be infringed” allows “reasonable” restrictions.
My point is and always has been - do you think that there are any limits on firearm ownership?
But you can own a tank and it can fire, you can own a mortor and you can even own a sawed off shotgun. All of these are regulated by the federal government.
The problem with the governments brief is that “reasonable regulation” is allowable, when the “shall not be infringed” was placed in the constitution at the end of the second amendment.
A person who has paid his debt to society used to be considered a citizen again and rights were reinstated without government intervention or condition. It was understood thata he had a right of self defense as a natural right and since 1968 congress stripped him of that right is egregious.
The governments brief is full of distortions and inaccurcies that have become to be commonly accepted.
Myth should not replace fact as the government would have us believe.
On this issue, the status quo is NOT neutral. The statist anti-rights crowd have had free reign over the last eighty years, and nobody has uttered a peep. Therefore the status quo is already one-sided and to stand for it is NOT a neutral position.
I lost Bush on immigration after seriously supporting him thru two elections with time, street work and money.
He acan kiss my butt.
If it hadn’t been for 9-11 and his appropriate responses, he’d be an even lamer duck than he is.
but oh boy....look at our choices to replace him....gawd
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.