[Gunner9mm]

This column also available at www.libertycall.us under the 2nd Amendment section.

[Mach5]

It’s so second class that the Framers made it #2 on the list. Laughable.

[Robert357]

Maybe Gun Owners of America or some other group should also file comments on the Solicitor's comments about the Second Amendment being a non-fundamental right and remind folks of the language in the Declaration of Independence that state.....

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

[jonascord]

Just keep in mind that now that the Bush administration is a lame duck, that they can come out of the Closet, and tell us how they actually think. Isn’t it nice to know that Bush thinks the Constitution is more like guidelines than actual rules?

[Joe Brower]

[Joe Brower]

This thread has just added to the FreeRepublic "bang list" (firearms interest list) by adding the keyword "banglist".

Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.

Let Freedom Ring,

Click the pic to go to the Gun Facts v4.2 download page!

[Mariner]

This is truly about government power.

They are FREAKED at the thought of most, if not all of the existing state and Federal laws will be negated by the USSC.

It's likely the USSC will see SOME interest the government and the states have in this issue...and may, in fact, specifically narrow their decision to the DC case...and warn the feds and states they need another approach along guidelines xyz.

I just don't anticipate the USSC will rule that all existing gun law is unconstitutional.

[RasterMaster]

Nothing suprises me, coming from a group who thinks the words “Congress shall make no law” are subject to interpretation.

[Condor51]

...the Solicitor General's amicus brief for further review, research, and study. The Solicitor General's advisors and staff need to hit the books and review a significant concept that they have previously missed – The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, are specific limits on government, limits adopted by the consent of the governed.

And in the process of re-educating themselves, they need to look up the definition of "shall not be infringed."

I'm going to give the Solicitor General and staff a litle help here on the 2nd Amendment - free of charge too.

The Second Amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Okay let's break that down with some input from real Constitutional experts.

• A well regulated Militia,
  George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

• being necessary to the security of a free State,
  Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
  Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

• shall not be infringed.
  Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
  

So there it is Mr Solicitor General. It can't get any simpler.

oops, almost forgot... You, yeah you 'public officers' like Senator Di-Fi and Schumer - you have NO RIGHT to own a gun, hand em in pronto. You have till midnight to disarm! (not sarcasm)

[Amendment10]

In case anybody missed this from previous posts, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So whatever the intentions of the drafters of the 2nd A. was, there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. now protects the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other privilege and immunity protected by the federal Constitution protects other personal rights. Note the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

[Filo]

THe question is this: How do we convince the President to force the revision of this brief?

[TLI]

The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right.

The Constitution is Not a “Living, Breathing Document”
Posted on January 18th, 2008
By Fred Thompson


This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

We Need FRED THOMPSOM for President.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It is no longer a right if the government can limit it with “a good enough reason”.

[Dead Corpse]

meaning that legislators must weigh the proposed benefit of the law carefully before realizing the the Amendment says "shall not be infringed" and not infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Fixed it.

Gettin' closer to Claire Time...

[Waco]

Leave the 2nd alone, you gotta admit it’s very effective at smoking out sh-theads and traitors.

[mommadooo3]

PLEASE excuse my blondeness.(it's been a few years since I last FReeped,and now can't remember how to do it) But, here is a blast from our past. Deals with gun control.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387a442a3991.htm

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Hillary will take this right away, if her royal highness becomes president.

[paul51]

One needn't be a lawyer to recognize the esoteric nonsense in the Solicitor General's argument.

Let's hope the supremes agree

[budwiesest]

Needless to say, the Solicitor General's Office has considerable influence before the court.

It should be subordinate to the language in the Constitution. Otherwise, it invites politicization. And that's a bad thing.

[nonsporting]

...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.

I'm sorry. The 2ndA says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Argument over. Contact ready.

[B4Ranch]

I don’t carry a gun…

… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.