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 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-207 next last
To: ctdonath2; Beelzebubba
Have you never flown before?

If you were able to pass through the metal detector with it, it would never get X-rayed.

And I never asserted that such a gun existed but it seems entirely possible to make one and it may be that some US agencies have such weapons for good reason.

And no major manufacturer is going to try to make one - because they can't sell it (as, *cough* it is banned.)

161 posted on 01/21/2008 2:43:37 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Bush could have done far worse, but supposedly for a 2nd Amendment supporter, he could have done far better.

I might agree with you with a second reading.

A better tact to defend the 2nd amendment is reason, not appeals to a static document. Kind of like saying not to be an adulterer because the Bible says so, without going into detail about what the real world consequencies of adultery are.

162 posted on 01/21/2008 2:47:04 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
“W” has got to be the biggest let down in my life!

You had too high expectations. Me, I wasn't expecting much but no way could I stomach Gore or Kerry presidencies.

Actually, I've often found myself pleasantly surprised by him at times. The deciding vote to uphold the Constitution on Shelly Parker vs DC was by Thomas B. Griffith, a Dubya appointee.

Note: the dissenting judge, Karen Henderson, was appointed by his Bush I.

163 posted on 01/21/2008 3:02:51 PM PST by Tribune7 (Dems want to rob from the poor to give to the rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

Let’s see - a CIA agent publishing names of other agents, drunk driving, and drug use by parents. I can come up with powerful arguments for prior restraint in those cases, and probably a few others.

But not for outlawing entire classes of firearms to law-abiding citizens...which is EXACTLY what the DOJ brief is asking the Supreme Court to allow, under the guise of “reasonable restrictions.” IOW, “Yeah, its a right, but we should be able to curtail when and to whatever extent we’d like to, so long as we can come up with a reasonable-sounding excuse.” IOW, a meaningless right that is, in fact, a mere privilege.

No thanks. I hope that Roberts & Co. stick that brief up the DOJ’s collective arse.


164 posted on 01/21/2008 3:13:58 PM PST by Ancesthntr (I’ve joined the Frederation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

After reading the Brief, I am not opposed to its recommendation: remand the decision back to the lower court for further review.


165 posted on 01/21/2008 4:12:57 PM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

“I’m turning 23 and I support every citizen’s right to own a bear a wide variety of arms.”

God bless you.


166 posted on 01/21/2008 4:31:19 PM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
But not for outlawing entire classes of firearms to law-abiding citizens

RPGs?

As someone else here pointed out, this isn't about 'firearms' so much as 'arms.'

167 posted on 01/21/2008 5:07:09 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Sorry, I read your post and get the impression of someone too cranky to co-operate with the incompetent desk clerk at the local post office.

Yes, that would be me.

I really don't see the problem with demonstrating who you are in able to get a post office box.

I really don't see the problem with demonstrating your body mass index in order to buy a hamburger.

168 posted on 01/21/2008 6:07:22 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
“One conservative Web site said the administration had “blundered in catastrophic fashion,”

MERELY more in keeping with a series of catastrophic blunders by a President who either presented himself as something he was not, or is lacking in certain reasoning capabilities, or both.

Merely the sight of this impostor turns my stomach.

His failure to punish the Fallujans for the butchery of American contractors back in his first term turned an up until then successful military operation into a catastrophe. The Muslims stared and he blinked.

He went on to demonstrate his lack of reasoning abilities, or fraudulent credentials - choose them as you will, with Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports, failure to defend our southern borders, persecuting Ramos and Compean, stabbing Israel in the back, an idiotic experiment with missiles on Russia’s western borders, an irrational scheme involving Benazir Bhutto, selection of series of incompetent or left-leaning advisers - Norman Minetta, the FEMA wonderboy,
Chrissie Whitman, Tom Kean Senior, the former Attorney General, the present Secretary of Defense Gates (criticizing the few friends you have in public is tantamount to exemplary stupidity - even in an administration which has excelled in that area) - and now this.

Stabbing the gun owners of America in the back over the Second Amendment just as he stabbed all Americans in the back when he signed McCain-Feingold.

Bush has done some things write. Nobody is 100 % wrong even if they try as hard as possible. But most of those correct decisions do not outweigh the damage this man has done to the conservative movement in the Republican Party and, by extension, to the conservatives in general in America.

Bush II will ultimately rank right up there with his equally incompetent father, his predecessor of the many sexual adventures, the peanut planter Jimmah Cahtah, Lyndon Johnson, Rockefeller Republican Ford, the schizophrenic Richard Nixon and the “Prince of Camelot” John Kennedy, as the worst of American Presidents.

169 posted on 01/21/2008 6:14:01 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Cannot recall the source but this is good:

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:

“Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

And I might add would this mean that that "high powered books" with dangerous intellectual ideas which might stir the people up should be banned?

170 posted on 01/21/2008 6:14:28 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Well, when the islamofascists start a laundering operation involving McDonalds, I won’t either.


171 posted on 01/21/2008 6:25:07 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

And you’ve turned the constitution into a death pact since apparently the 2nd amendment allows high powered weaponry - like shoulder-mounted AA missiles to be owned by questionable Muslims. Because stopping them from loitering around the runway at Laguardia would be prior restraint.


172 posted on 01/21/2008 6:29:49 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Yeah, I support a rule book that lists what weapons are not allowed to be owned by the citizenry and I think the rule book should be written by elected officials and in compliance with the 2nd amendment. Because the day this country lets folks walk around with heavy weaponry OR the day it forbids private semi-auto assault weaponry ownership and concealed carry, it is finished.

The constitution is useless if you interpret in such a way as to destroy the country it is meant to govern.

173 posted on 01/21/2008 6:41:24 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
And you’ve turned the constitution into a death pact since apparently the 2nd amendment allows high powered weaponry - like shoulder-mounted AA missiles to be owned by questionable Muslims. Because stopping them from loitering around the runway at Laguardia would be prior restraint.

The Constitution a death pact? Was it a "death pact" during the almost 200 hundred years before the 1930s when the first Federal gun laws went into effect?

All gun laws proir to the Miller case were local, i.e., no guns allowed in the saloon, or on the streets of Dodge, etc. The only reason any Federal gun laws were inacted was because of hard core criminals, Al Copone and his descendents; modern day gang-bangers etc. have been the root of ALL modern Federal gun laws.

Most citizens of this country are NOT the enemy. Those of us that own guns use them mostly for recreation and rarley, for self defense. There is no reason that "Laguardia" could not make it unlawful to carry "AA missiles," (whatever they are) near the airport, just like they do in many establishments in Texas where signs out side state: "No Firearms Allowed."

Crack down on hard core criminals, not law abiding American citizens.

174 posted on 01/21/2008 6:51:40 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Well, when the islamofascists start a laundering operation involving McDonalds, I won’t either..

Paranioa has no relationship to freedom and liberty.

175 posted on 01/21/2008 7:01:16 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Make that paranoia.


176 posted on 01/21/2008 7:04:43 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

That shouldn’t be a problem. SCOTUS could take care of that concern and still do the right thing by saying “This 90% of existing firearms law is unconstitutional, and will be struck down. We will allow a 12 month grace period while state legislatures and Congress can try to come up with laws which implement their legislative objectives while meeting the following criteria for Constitionality. As of one year from today, the laws mentioned are null and void.”


177 posted on 01/21/2008 8:55:41 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
RPGs?

Infantry weapon, right?

178 posted on 01/21/2008 9:04:32 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
mbraynard said: "The constitution is useless if you interpret in such a way as to destroy the country it is meant to govern."

Please tell me the date on which a rulebook became necessary. I don't believe that such a rulebook was necessary when the Bill of Rights was ratified. How do you justify imposing a rulebook without the benefit of a Constitutional amendment?

Those of us who do not fear arms in the hands of the law-abiding, and who recognize that the non-law-abiding will ignore such laws, do not see the need for such a rulebook. There is no power on earth that can disarm evil people without destroying them.

179 posted on 01/21/2008 10:02:44 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Still Thinking suggests: "As of one year from today, the laws mentioned are null and void."

The Supreme Court does not have the power to permit the enforcement of an unConstitutional law for even five seconds. There are already Court rulings that make plain that unConstitutional laws are to be treated as unenforcable from the time of their origin.

180 posted on 01/21/2008 10:06:14 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-207 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