[neverdem]

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Amicus Brief

[sageb1]

Please warn of .pdf docs

[the anti-liberal]

Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.

[the anti-liberal]

Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.

[de meanr]

Not as slanted as I expected from the NYT. I think I’ll try to browse some of the briefs later today.

[RockyMtnMan]

So if, God help us, the supremes do go with a “militia” view of the 2nd. What is to stop individuals from forming private “militias” for the purpose of buying fire-arms? Kind of like the way Dallas county (Texas) liqueur establishments have “clubs” you join to get around the dry county laws.

What is the standard for a militia? Is it a state by state sort of affair and how loose is the interpretation of a militia?

I’m truly interested to here what other Freepers think on the militia angle. If they are going to play semantics with words then I would recommend individuals doing the same and joining their state “militias”.

[brityank]

“Strict scrutiny,” the most protective standard, accorded to rights the court deems “fundamental,” almost always dooms to failure an effort at government regulation. The briefs on the individual-rights side of this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, argue for applying strict scrutiny, and it is Mr. Clement’s refusal to embrace that standard that has caused such consternation.

The government’s brief argues for judicial review that would be “heightened” but not strict, employing a sliding scale that balances the impact that any restriction might have on the “protected conduct” of private gun ownership against “the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement” of the restriction. The District of Columbia’s law “may well fail such scrutiny,” the brief observes.

We already have such a "sliding scale" on most all of the other Rights, that does not make them -- or the USSC -- correct in its interpretation.

• 1^st Amend.: Speech -- cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre absent an actual fire.
• Religion: Snake and Peyoté handlers prohibited.
• Press: No free access to broadcast of print media except on allowance and restrictions of the governments agent.

Are those restrictions reasonable -- yes. Are they Constitutional -- no. That is also why the Founders gave us a Republic instead of a mob-rule Democracy.

The twisting that various legislative bodies have taken WRT the Second violates the plain language ... shall not be infringed. To countenance that a man may not provide for his own protection and defense, or to restrict his method due to erroneous assumptions of staré decisis cases is unconstitutional, and should be struck down fully. To do otherwise allows that the criminals can usurp the rights of the law-abiding, and wastes time and treasure from our government.