Posted on 01/21/2008 10:42:03 AM PST by Gunner9mm
The Solicitor General has issued a truly bizarre amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Heller vs. District of Columbia, the case that is challenging the District's ban on handguns.
The Solicitor General's Office represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court and, as in this case, presents the administration's position. Needless to say, the Solicitor General's Office has considerable influence before the court.
The brief presented by the Solicitor General makes some valid points upon which Second Amendment supporters can agree. The brief states the administration's opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that laws restricting that right should be subject to "strict scrutiny" – meaning that legislators must weigh the proposed benefit of the law carefully before infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Additionally, the brief expresses the opinion that the District of Columbia's strict gun ban should be overturned. So far, so good.
The Solicitor General's brief also takes a bizarre turn. While the Solicitor General calls for "strict scrutiny" for gun laws in general, he calls on the Supreme Court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" as it determines Heller vs. DC. The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right.
(Excerpt) Read more at enterstageright.com ...
It is no longer a right if the government can limit it with “a good enough reason”.
GWB really dropped the ball on this!!
Fixed it.
Gettin' closer to Claire Time...
I think this case is going to turn on how much black robe fever dominates the court.
This is not about second amendment, this is about government restrictions on individuals period.
Property ownership, property of person, property of thought, all hinge on the second and all contrary to the interests in institutionalized elites.
I'm SHOCKED.
Al governments tend toward tyranny. That’s what the 2nd was all about in the beginning and that’s what it’s about today. The government of the US can and has taken away all the so-called “rights” that are part of the Constitution at one time or the other, including the MSM’s sacrosanct “right of free speech.” The media SOB’s should really take notice of that when they criticize the RKBA. Campaign Finance Reform showed us that. That law should also have opened our eyes to the fact that its not only the RAT-bastard party that will take away rights when it suits their purposes. And we shouldn’t put too much faith in the US SC either - Kelo should have taught us that. The question is how much BS are we going to take before we act? My answer is - a heck of a lot since we all have more to lose than to gain by another year like 1776. It will take something like the depredations of government on a par with those that preceeded the Romanian Revolution of 1989. The thing about the latter is that it should have been instructive to politicians everywhere that it can still happen.
Dropped? More like kicked an own goal.
Our 2nd Amendment is the ‘teeth’ of the Constitution.
"File impeachment basied upon violation of his oath of office?"
He's already violated his oath of office several times.....including when he signed McCain/Fiengold.
Leave the 2nd alone, you gotta admit it’s very effective at smoking out sh-theads and traitors.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387a442a3991.htm
L
THANK YOU!!!!! It’s gonna take me a little while to get back up to speed. LOL!
Round up the usual suspects. *sigh*
It’s good to have one of the amendments be as polarizing as the 2nd is. Million$ of $ have been raised both pro & con and like I just said, it’s very effective at smoking out sh-theads and traitors. Keep it up boys!
Hillary will take this right away, if her royal highness becomes president.
Maybe it’s his payback to conservatives for not backing: his open border policy, or his sucking up with Teddy The swimmer, him saying Islam is a religion of peace, adnausium....
Let's hope the supremes agree
I voted for a Bush, and all I got was a lousy weed.
She won't be... At least not according to my careful and exacting analysis - also known as a guess. I think she will be VP candidate with Obama, and Romney will become our next President. I'm not a Romney supporter, but I do think that's the way things will play out.
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.