Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case (Presidential amicus brief on DC Gun Ban)
Washington Post ^ | 01/20/08 | By Robert Barnes

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; amicusbrief; banglist; ccw; doj; ericcantor; heller; nra; parker; rkba; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-207 next last
To: mbraynard

What a disgusting thing to say! Tells me all I need to know about you...you’re vile. When responding to someone I usually quote what I’m replying to but in this case I won’t quote such a vile personal attack.


121 posted on 01/21/2008 9:05:54 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Wake Up America!!


122 posted on 01/21/2008 9:07:29 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

As a gunsmith and gunstore owner I feel completely betrayed by the new party of the left. I would expect this from the far-left, but the “conservative” party has gone so far to the left that I feel they are beyond repair. I’ve washed my hands of them. They’ll not get another vote from me.


123 posted on 01/21/2008 9:14:56 AM PST by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
There are some real restrictions on the first amendment. Real ones that existed from the begining of time that are not mentioned in the amendment - like slander, liable, fighting words, immiment danger, etc. Are there no restrictions on the most literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

The restrictions on the 1st Amendment that you cite are in the nature of punishment (either civil or criminal liability) for the violation of the rights of others. They are absolutely NOT in the nature of prior restraint. The DOJ wants to maintain the power of the government to restrict/effectively ban certain weapons BEFORE a person even buys them. A perfect example is a post-5/19/1986 full auto firearm: you and I simply cannot buy them. That you could buy an otherwise identical firearm that was registered on 5/19/86 shows the clear intent of the law: to drive up prices so that only wealthy collectors could afford full autos, and to make sure that the number of them is limited.

The 1st Amendment equivalent of such prior restraint would be the forced removal of your tongue prior to entering a movie house, on the theory that you might yell "fire!" when, in fact, there was no such fire, and thereby criminally endanger others.

I guess that I must have grown up in a different country, one in which law-abiding citizens were assumed not to be criminals, and were not prohibited from exercising their most basic right because some control freaks with power think that they MIGHT commit a crime with a firearm.

124 posted on 01/21/2008 9:27:26 AM PST by Ancesthntr (I’ve joined the Frederation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
> 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.

Good point. It can additionally be argued that the Constitution's provision for letters of marque is an implicit acceptance or approval of non-governmental people/entities possessing warlike armaments....

125 posted on 01/21/2008 9:49:55 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
mbraynard said: "I don't even get the 2nd part of a test because the only weapons around back then were laughably inefficient, though I guess they did have 'handguns' and 'longguns.'"

They also had cannons and warships. They also used tons of blackpowder when they mined under fortifications and blew them up. The first submarine was developed during the Revolutionary War, though the attempt to attach a mine to the underside of a ship was unsuccessful.

The Second Amendment protects "arms" not "firearms".

126 posted on 01/21/2008 9:58:21 AM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

I did read it; it’s not talking about nuclear weapons or tanks. It talks about stuff like handguns. The administration does not want the USSC to favor the 2A.


127 posted on 01/21/2008 10:09:03 AM PST by jjm2111 (Sarcasm tags deleted by popular demand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
mbraynard said: "How do you reconcile this right with the increasingly potent choice of arms that are available today versus during the revolution? "

It's called "the amendment process". You don't expect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to just automatically adjust itself to changing conditions, do you?

And what do you think are the chances that the super-majority of Congress and the super-majority of state legislatures that are needed to amend are going to ratify an amendment permitting the outlawing of some rifles because they have a bayonet lug?

If there are restrictions that the people of the US will approve to the protected right to keep and bear arms we will never know as long as a simple majority is allowed to infringe the right.

128 posted on 01/21/2008 10:15:50 AM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
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.

Right. Well, possibly right. Ditto for bans on arms not metal detectable. This is the solicitor's concern.

129 posted on 01/21/2008 11:43:06 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: longun45
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.

Ok. That's not solely what is at stake here, and as others have pointed out, revoking the right to arms as part of the penalty doesn't seem to be unreasonable for certain criminals, not much different from MEgan's law.

130 posted on 01/21/2008 11:45:27 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

If someone initiates a personal attack on me, as he did, they need to be fully prepared for an extreme elevation of invictive in return.


131 posted on 01/21/2008 11:47:02 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Prior restraint isn't relevant here. My point is that there are cases where EXCERCISING the DELINEATED right ('speaking' for the first and 'bearing' for the 2nd) have both been held to not be absolute.

If you want to talk about prior restraint, that's a different discussion.

132 posted on 01/21/2008 11:49:23 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
The first submarine was developed during the Revolutionary War, though the attempt to attach a mine to the underside of a ship was unsuccessful.

It's not the Hunley - from the Civil war?

The Second Amendment protects "arms" not "firearms".I don't see what your point is as it pertains to this case or to the test the appeals court has created.

133 posted on 01/21/2008 11:52:10 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111

It’s not that simple. They don’t want it to support it in such a way that it throws out all of the current federal and state restrictions all at once.


134 posted on 01/21/2008 11:53:04 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
It talks about stuff like handguns.

Er, now that I remember - it isn't talking about handguns, it's specifically talking about machine guns and handguns that cannot be detected in metal detectors, and it also discusses preventing certain criminals from accessing weapons. You may agree or disagree with these limitations, but the brief isn't just about handguns.

135 posted on 01/21/2008 11:55:17 AM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“More likely all these Big government folks fear free citizens would hamper their agenda for a global socialist utopia.”

I think you’re right. I have had a heartening experience lately though, in that I met a couple of “kids” on a new job that are staunch gunnies. They are both 21 years old and are what I would consider squishy in some areas but they are passionate about 2A rights and have even started their own gun club.

Maybe there’s hope yet.


136 posted on 01/21/2008 11:55:28 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
It's called "the amendment process".

That would be one way to pursue this. Maybe a good one.

You don't expect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to just automatically adjust itself to changing conditions, do you?

I don't think it needs to, nor does it need to be frequently amended to adjsut itself to changing conditions. I think the constitution is fine as it is and if interpreted correctly and with original intent in mind, can continue to work just fine. Re: 2nd amendment, the 'militia' language in the text suggests the right to bear arms doesn't apply to a group of Islamic extremists manufacturing, distributing, and posessing suicide vests.

137 posted on 01/21/2008 12:03:32 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Ditto for bans on arms not metal detectable.

Then this is nonsense because there aren't any firearms that fall into this category. There are some mines that are mostly non-metallic for obvious reasons.

138 posted on 01/21/2008 12:04:53 PM PST by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Prior restraint isn't relevant here.

If you want to talk about prior restraint, that's a different discussion.

What is a broad gun ban of any kind, other than prior restraint? Isn't that what's at issue in this case? Isn't the DOJ memo an attempt to retain this power on the federal level by calling it "reasonable restraint?"

139 posted on 01/21/2008 12:06:53 PM PST by Ancesthntr (I’ve joined the Frederation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

Sorry, “reasonable restrictions”


140 posted on 01/21/2008 12:07:39 PM PST by Ancesthntr (I’ve joined the Frederation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson