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 ...
Right. Well, possibly right. Ditto for bans on arms not metal detectable. This is the solicitor’s concern.
The solicitor lumped the issue of machine guns in lawful private hands with prohibiting guns for felons. Lots of crap not at issue and never disputed, just to muddy the waters.
I also have openly supported Bush since his nomination, but this is the last straw. Bush is stabbing his staunchest supporters in the back. I can no longer support him or give him a positive job approval.
Right. Because they are banned.
Right. Because they are banned.
There are more broad cases of prior restraint laws, as well, as pertains to drunken driving and drug abuse among parents.
That's what you are missing. It is at issue - at least the solicitor makes the case that it does - because of how broadly the appeals court decided the case.
I’m turning 23 and I support every citizen’s right to own a bear a wide variety of arms.
If these particular Islamic extremists were determined to sacrifice their own lives to stop other Islamic extremists from practicing Jihad against other Americans, would that still apply?
Does this mean that under no circumstances would you ever strap a bomb to your body and blow yourself up to protect your family and loved ones from Islamic extremists?
If there is an Islamic extremist who is a member of "the people" is he nonetheless to be denied all of his right to keep and bear arms? How about Catholic extremists? Democrat extremists? New England Patriot extremists?
Will there be a simple test to determine who is not protected or will there be a sizeable rule book? Who gets to write such a book?
Own and bear*********
I wouldn’t want a bear as a pet.
“Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case (Presidential amicus brief on DC Gun Ban)”
Is there even ONE conservative remaining in America that isn’t at least a little bit disgusted with this pr*ck?
If you combine the two issues (illegal aliens and this anti-2A crapola) the case can now be made that the Republican President of the U.S.A. is allowing the invasion of this nation and is trying to remove from the civilian population their ability to fend it off.
Such guns DO NOT EXIST.
Right. Because they are banned.
The “undetectable” guns never existed, even when they would have been legal. The technology does not exist to make them viable in production.
Maybe you should get your firearms info from the facts, and not the movies.
It's been years since I read about it, but I believe it was called the "Turtle". It was a one man affair that used a foot crank to turn the propeller. A mine was attached to the outside of the craft. The operator would propel the craft to the bottom of a ship and then turn a handcrank inside the craft to attach it by a large screw to the ship.
The first attempt to use it was unsuccessful because it was spotted by crew members on the target ship. A second attempt was defeated by the change of the tide. It sounded like one of those episodes where history could have been dramatically changed had the attempt been successful.
That's pretty detectable - and is precisely the type that caused the "not detectable" hysteria.
The US brief attempts to treat the right to keep and bear arms as simply the American version of the same common law right possessed by the British. It could be expected that our protection would be as limited as that in Great Britain, where self defense has been virtually outlawed and some are now insisting that plastic replica guns used in dramatic productions be registered.
The case hinges solely and completely on the protection of the Second Amendment, which is the protection of the people to keep and bear "arms", not firearms.
Given that the people have a right to keep warships, the Supreme Court should laugh at any attempt to deny handguns to the residents of DC based on them being "unusually lethal" or any other such liberal nonsense.
From the brief:
“Given the unequestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding as illustrated by the exsisting Federal laws regulating firearms.”
Note it doesn’t say, tanks, nuclear arms, battleships. It says firearms. The next paragraph goes on to say to the effect that if the court categorically says handguns are “Arms” under the 2A then ANYTHING could be “Arms”. Later on the gov’t misuses the framer’s intent of “well-regulated”, something that’s been pretty much proven.
The brief also says:
“Congress has substantial authority to ban the private possession of firearms by persons whom congress deems unfit to keep such weapons.”
The brief also uses tortured logic with respects to trigger locks, etc. In short, the brief is trying desperately to protect the status quo.
I’ve read pretty much the whole thing and yes, it’s as bad as the doom-and-gloomers say. Bush could have done far worse, but supposedly for a 2nd Amendment supporter, he could have done far better.
mbraynard, one other thing:
It’s the “categorical” thing that bugs me the most. With the exception of a few, very limited restrictions, my ability, a citizen with no criminal record, to practice my religion, speak my mind, or practice my religion is without limit or restriction.
My ability to keep and carry arms is highly restricted. I cannot bear arms w/out getting sign-off from the government in an expensive and time-consuming manner. Even, after jumping through the hoops in my state, I cannot carry arms in many states. Many states in the Northeast are “may issue” which means they can deny my 2A rights for any or no reason.
The feds stuck the above paragraph in my eye with this brief.
The background check takes about 5 minutes and I don't remember there being a surcharge. You are right about the carry issues in the various states, though some (VT) are excellent.
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.