Posted on 02/08/2008 10:09:26 AM PST by JZelle
Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate say they are behind gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case.
The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District's ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years.
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.
"The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm ... a Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, said yesterday.
Nine Democrats in the Senate and 68 in the House joined much larger Republican contingents in signing the brief, which is expected to be filed today.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects a person's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias.
The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Pigs...pigs flying outside my window.
The remaining 45 Senators and 185 Representatives should be tried for treason and, when found guilty, summarily shot.
Signatures... we need to know who signed.
“But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership”
Seven years of college wasted. After all that, Jorge the Mexican can’t read and comprehend simple English.
Shall not be infringed, does not mean regulated out of existence. It means remains untouched.
What a horse’s ass.
Absolutely !! Shoot them at Dawn. If they don’t get up at Dawn...shoot them in bed !!
Ping!!!
Don’t have those yet ... but do have those who signed a brief in opposition:
Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)*
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04)
These aren’t just ones who didn’t sign in support of Mr. Heller, these went so far as to sign in support of DC’s ban.
Heller’s brief said that too.
The problem is nobody wants to discuss, to point of definition, what constitutes “reasonable”.
Thank goodnes, none from my state (FL).
Obama recently stated that he was pro 2A and in favor of protecting hunters and sportsmen’s rights to keep firearms.
I wonder if McCain signed this?
Sombody should have asked him what the hell does hunting have to do with the Second Amendment?
"Shall not be infringed". The only "reasonable" restrictions would be on "use". As in, you can't walk down the street randomly shooting at people. Or, you can't shoot your .50 BMG in your Urban backyard due to over penetration of your cardboard backstop into your neighbors house, the house on the other side of them, and the fire station on the corner.
The only laws in force at the time were laws that required citizens to be properly armed and to order the state to provide them for those lacking the funds to buy their own. I’d be willing to go back to that.
Ironically, not one from my state, either (CT) - and I figured that whackbag Dodd would have been eager to jump on that bandwagon...apparently not.
And he studied constitutional law.
The only other “reasonable restriction” involves consequences of accidents. The little party at Lexington/Concord started when the powers that be moved to sieze the contents of the town armory. Why were privately owned items stored in a communal armory? because at the time, black powder was reasonably considered hazardous enough (one tipped candle => kegs go BOOM) that the community provided a safe storage location. That suggests that today it would be a “reasonable regulation” to require private RPGs, WMDs, etc. be stored at the communal armory - not to deprive anyone of them, but to ensure no harm done should something go off.
Then he is proven evil, not stupid, although he could still be both.
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.