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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-207 next last
To: kingu
kingu said: "I’m not holding my breath, but it would be proper for the court to assail everyone who submitted briefs that are so convoluted, contrary and twisted."

A good question for a Supreme Court Justice to ask the plaintiff, DC, would be, "Given that the US has stated that the common law right to keep and bear arms permits "reasonable regulation" of the right, what additional constraints on government, if any, were created by the ratification of the Second Amendment?"

Let's hear them explain that one-tenth of our Bill of Rights has no beneficial effect whatever toward protecting our rights. It's quite disheartening to think that there are Supreme Court Justices who would agree.

21 posted on 01/20/2008 6:35:13 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 14 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

thanks Enterprise.


22 posted on 01/20/2008 6:39:20 PM PST by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

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

Right you are.
It has worked for many other governments; history should not be forgotten!


23 posted on 01/20/2008 6:42:26 PM PST by elpinta (Tagline temporarily out of service)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus; AlaskaErik; Neu Pragmatist; umgud; mcshot; driftdiver; SWAMPSNIPER; ...
Wow. What great friends you must make. Some guy at the Washington Post writes a story and quotes some half-cocked congressman and a failed candidate trolling for votes and you guys believe it without even so much as a second guess and suddenly think that President Bush is a gun grabbing Hitler socialist traitor. 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?

Why would any candidate pursue support or cater to the interests of a constituency so easily duped?

I read the Washington Post article. I read it a second time. It wasn't clear to me what the soliciter was saying, and I didn't trust the WashPost staff writer, so I went and dug up the actual brief in question.

Reading it carefully, it makes some sense and isn't any kind of backstabbing. It supports, clearly, the over-ruling of the gun ban in DC.

The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov't has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.

Now I understand that some of you think these kinds of laws are unconstitutional, and they may well be, but they are the status quo and have been for the last century and defending them on the books is hardly the kind of thing you need to flip out on the president over.

So cool your jets. And read the brief if you want right here.

24 posted on 01/20/2008 6:46:44 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“The only justification for suggesting that “reasonable regulation” isn’t an infringement was one early court decision which permitted a ban on concealed carry. One judge’s decision is hardly sufficient to outweigh the Founder’s intentions to bar infringements”

Our Supreme Court Justices have looked to foreign laws in order to interpret our Constitution. I have no faith in them including Roberts.


25 posted on 01/20/2008 6:48:03 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LastDayz

It isn’t untenable. Maybe you should read it. See post 24.


26 posted on 01/20/2008 6:48:39 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Actually, that question would best be asked of the defendant. The plaintiff brought the case.


27 posted on 01/20/2008 6:50:00 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223; Inyo-Mono

See post 24.


28 posted on 01/20/2008 6:50:43 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

One day, before his term is over....GWB will give a press conference....and surprise....rips off his mask and says “I did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky”....


29 posted on 01/20/2008 6:51:12 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Support the ABM Treaty...Anyone But McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

So do you think we would still have the AWB today if Al Gored was elected or not Swampsniper?

GWb is at least neutral the Libs are hostile to the 2nd amendment and will indeed do more then offer Amicus briefs, they will ban stuff.


30 posted on 01/20/2008 6:54:05 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

“The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov’t has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.”

I did read it. They make the argument that the DC gun ban is just an extension of this.

Down the slippery slope we go!

The musket was the assault weapon of the Revolutionary times.


31 posted on 01/20/2008 6:56:19 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

“The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov’t has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.”

@nd amendment advocates and Constitutionalists stand on the brink of seeing 20,000 firearms laws repealed throughout the country, this brief supports each and everyone of the 20,000 laws through the warm pablum of “Reasonableness” and that is a bit of tough pill to swallow for those who supported GWB due to the outrageous “Assault Weapons Ban” and the “Brady Law”.


32 posted on 01/20/2008 7:00:47 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Although I voted for G. W. Bush twice, I have recently decided that was a mistake.

The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.

I am done.

33 posted on 01/20/2008 7:06:00 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
To all those who say Romney has the same views as George Bush, what I’ve been saying all along still holds true...Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment and would be a disaster on Second Amendment issues.

BTTT

34 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:13 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.

What are you talking about? I have one and renew it annually.

35 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:48 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem; padre35
Are you two taking the position that no restrictions should apply to the 2nd Amendment, even in cases of due process?

The solicitor made the point that some restrictions are reasonable and that the standard the SCOTUS applies needs to be more precise than the one applied by the appeals court.

Now, I'm not going to say you are necessarily wrong about the first one, but I am saying you are wrong to interpret the solicitor's opinion as de facto favoring Brady, the AWB, and that you are wrong to beat up on W so brutally for this.

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?

36 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:56 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.”

Huh? why couldnt you do that?


37 posted on 01/20/2008 7:11:03 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) accused the Justice Department of "overlawyering" the issue.

And Fred is the ONLY one of the candidates to comment on this amicus by the DOJ!!!!!

38 posted on 01/20/2008 7:11:25 PM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
What are you talking about? I have one and renew it annually.

Sooner or later, they will get around to asking you for proof of physical address in three (3) forms and a picture ID issued by some government agency.

I don't have any of that.

39 posted on 01/20/2008 7:14:24 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

See #39.


40 posted on 01/20/2008 7:15:30 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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