Posted on 07/21/2003 4:29:20 PM PDT by dr_who_2
Hatch Legislation to Overturn D.C. Gun Ban Riles Some
"Months before Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation to repeal the District's 27-year-old handgun ban, two gun rights groups were trying to get the law struck down in U.S. District Court," reports The Washington Post.
"But instead of working together, the Cato Institute and the National Rifle Association have filed separate lawsuits against the gun ban and have disagreed with each other's legal tactics."
In a July 17 news release, Senior Fellow Bob Levy, one of the attorneys involved in a lawsuit challenging the handgun ban, says that the Hatch bill is an attempt to derail the lawsuit.
"Hatch and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have acted to prevent the Supreme Court from deciding whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms," writes Levy. "Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But there's no question that a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code would have negligible impact on gun owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court."
This is a report by sub-committee on Constitution.
Link to --- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Quote ----"In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit. ">
I have wondered if there may be something in his FBI file ---he treated Janet Reno with great deference, as I recall.
No I'm just pointing out the Bill of Right offers very little protection against unlimited government. For instance, since we are at war, merely a law is required to quarter troops in American's homes. There are dozens of loopholes in the BOR and the Founders, especially Hamilton, wanted it that way.
(When legislating for the Federal Zone) Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations,as when it is leglislating for the United States....And in general the gurantees of the Constitution, save as they are limitations on the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its leglislative power over the territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable.
Link to --- Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
Quote from case ---"We granted certiorari, 321 U.S. 762 , 64 S.Ct. 939, because of the novelty and importance of the constitutional questions raised. The questions for decision are (1) whether, with respect to the fibers brought from foreign countries, petitioner was their importer; if so, (2) whether, as stored in petitioner's warehouse, they continued to be imports at the time of the tax assessment; and (3) whether the fibers brought from the Philippine Islands, despite the place of their origin, are likewise imports rendered immune from taxation by the constitutional provision".
QUOTE---"...That our dependencies, acquired by cession as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of the Union of states under the Constitution, was long since established by a series of decisions in this Court beginning with The Insular Tax Cases in 1901;...."
I'm pretty sure. The case deals with another Federal Zone, the Phillipines, but the principle is the same.
I would point out that when we "liberated" the Phillipines we made critizing the Federal government of the United States a crime punishable by death.
Americans have no Constitutional rights within Federal Terroritory, only within the United States.
Are you arguing that D.C. is member state of the union?
Of course not -- but neither do I think it is a "territory " as considered in the case about imports and taxes.
Washington D.C is a "District" defined in the Constitution.
The Constitution says Congress "...shall exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever... ," but the Constititution does not say that the inhabitants of Washington D.C. are not citizens of U.S. and do not have Constitutional Rights.
Congress has to approve D.C. laws
From FAQ s
---"7. Why must an Act enacted by the local elected officials be approved by Congress?
----" Congress imposed this requirement on the District in the Home Rule Act. Congress must also approve the District's annual budget."
If we can find the home Rule Act , we might get some more info.
Sure, conviction and sentencing, no prob. Defendant was forbidden from mentioning either the State or Federal Constitution in his defense.
Colorado Supreme Court has denied appeal.
This is how the game is played folks.
I believe you will find Marbury vs. Madison establishes that the SCOTUS and only the SCOTUS determines constitutionality. If you can't make it to the SCOTUS or they don't want to hear your case, you are SOL.
Additionally, the entirely structure of judiciary is dictated by Congress the only exception being the Supreme Court. The number of Supreme Court justices is not Constitutionally specified and can be arbitrarily increased at any point to produced the desired result.
Finally, contrary to our civic mythology, the judiciary has no interest in serving as a check or balance to the other branches of the goverment. The Feds are all on the same team, why on Earth would they choose to limit their own powers? This is more like three bullies arguing over which one gets to beat you up rather than a real system of checks and balances.
When push comes to shove there are few "rights" Americans possess that can not be *legally* dismissed or ignored by the authorities. As Kissinger liked to say "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
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.