Government files amicus -- on DC's side!
Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.
And this is filed in the name of the Solicitor General. Some quotes:
"When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in
Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that considers (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction.
The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review."
"The determination whether those laws deprive respondent of a functional firearm depends substantially on whether D.C.’s trigger-lock provision, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, can properly be interpreted (as petitioners contend, see Br. 56) in a manner that allows respondent to possess a functional long gun in his home.8 And if the trigger-lock provision can be construed in such a manner, the courts below would be required to address the factual issue—not fully explored during the prior course of the litigation—whether the firearms that are lawfully available to respondent are significantly less suited to the identified lawful purpose (self-defense in the home) than the type of firearm (i.e., a handgun) that D.C. law bars respondent from possessing. To the extent necessary, further consideration of those questions should occur in the lower courts, which would be in the best position to determine, in light of this Court’s exposition of the proper standard of review, whether any fact-finding is necessary, and to place any appropriate limits on any evidentiary proceedings. Moreover, even if the existing record proved to be adequate, initial examination of those issues is typically better reserved for the lower courts."
The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand. "
As I read this, the (Bush) Dept of Justice is asking that the Court hold it to be an individual right, but not strike the DC gun law, instead sending it back down to the trial court to take evidence on everything from how much the District needs the law to whether people can defend themselves without pistols and just what the DC trigger lock law means. THEN maybe it can begin another four year trek to the Supremes. That is, the DoJ REJECTS the DC Circuit position that an absolute, flat, ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, and contends that it might just be justified, it all depends on the evidence.
There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup.
Yep. And I have soooo had it with the Republican party because of crap like that. It's just the kind of thing that really pisses me off. No! You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2008 09:28 PM
Fred Thompson would put a stop to this anti-gun rights DOJ stuff, that's for sure
Posted by: KSM at January 11, 2008 09:32 PM
It appears that there primary purpose is to protect their pseudo-ban on full auto and other 'destructive devices'.
They make a good argument, to this layman. But it falls apart where they argue on one hand that 2A was in part intended to prevent govt. oppression and then on another that the govt can restrict dangerous arms from the people.
Perhaps our numbers are meant to counteract the standing army's advantage in firepower?
Oh and this argument is not intended as a vehicle for arguing the violent overthrow of the govt, but is meant in a purely philosophical manner for purposes of discussing the brief. (can't be tagged as a homegrown terrorist now can I?)
Posted by: dwlawson at January 11, 2008 09:33 PM
This shows that George Bush is indeed a uniter, not a divider. This will have even more people united to seek his impeachment.
Posted by: Max at January 11, 2008 09:49 PM
Lets make CERTAIN the every Republican Presidential candidate is asked whether he supports this position. Ask every one of them, often!
This will cook Guiliani and Romney. Go Fred!
Posted by: 30yearprof at January 11, 2008 09:55 PM
There he goes again! George Bush is a Christian Liberal, not a Conservative. There isn't a limited government bone in his body.
Fred! Fred! Fred! Imagine him picking replacements for Stevens and Ginsburg.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at January 11, 2008 09:56 PM
I thought the NRA was all-powerful on the political side. Didn't their last President say that NRA had the Bush Administration in it's pocket?
Can't they control those they elect?
Posted by: 30yearprof at January 11, 2008 09:57 PM
Bush is a typical Ivy League RINO...the BOR only applies to the elite. Hayek would say that we are well on our way to surfdom and he would be correct. A Rino's fondest wish is to convert us to an Oligarchy.
Posted by: far at January 11, 2008 10:01 PM
If 2nd meant that the government couldn't regulate guns in some manner then the founders would have used explicit language like "shall not be infringed." Oh.
Posted by: Kazinski at January 11, 2008 10:06 PM
Screw your friends and suck up to your enemies. That seems to be Bush's motto.
Rush Limbaugh used to say that Bush and Rove had a plan to destroy the Democrat party. But all along it was the Republican party they were out to destroy.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at January 11, 2008 10:06 PM
George W Bush appears to have entered that portion of his Presidency where he is more concerned about how he "looks" to history. Reagan did it when he signed the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" which BANNED new full autos for civilian ownership. Some protection.
And people have acted under the hilarity that GWB is a "conservative". He is not and never has been one. He was tolerable when R's were in charge of Congress, kinda. Now he's back to "making deals" and posturing.
Posted by: Fiftycal at January 11, 2008 10:06 PM
A sad ..but not totally unexpected...day for the citizens of the USA. It shows the sick joke of our being concerned with the "war on terror" when our greatest threat is the corruption of the Constitution and the move toward a police state.
The power structure in America does not believe in the Constitution and this is just another proof of that. The Constitution has been overturned...we live in a country on a short road to facism.
Posted by: gp martin at January 11, 2008 10:07 PM
Another thing. Don't look for the political candidates- republican or democrat to
give more than lip service to this--if even that. They are all happy to not have the supreme court
issue a ruling before the election. That way they can all avoid committment.
Posted by: gp martin at January 11, 2008 10:17 PM
The Solicitor General has given us a positively Solomonic brief. It cuts the child in half.
Posted by: Munango-Keewati at January 11, 2008 10:23 PM
First, this brief was written with the collusion of the gun hating BATFAGS. Very hard to say if the person writing the brief was TRYING to spike the case. "It's a right, but if we make a law saying it's a reasonable restriction on the right, we can ban any damm thing we want". Is that a RIGHT?
It does stuff the contention that the RIGHT is a "collective" one. Now the BATFAGS have to deal with the "shall not be infringed" part and how making a law BANNING categories of guns (including machine guns) is "reasonable" if black powder single shots are still "legal".
And GWB is not running for office and hopefully will spend the rest of his time traveling on Air Force 1 and telling the Israeli's to divide Jerusalem and "fighting for peace" or whatever.
Posted by: Fiftycal at January 11, 2008 10:26 PM
I will vote for a candidate who publicly supports my right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There is no Republican party.
Posted by: JoeS at January 11, 2008 10:28 PM
if Thompson doesn't come in and clean up the mess that bush has made I'm out of the republican party.
what a joke.
Posted by: matt m at January 11, 2008 11:19 PM
I have tried to make some sense of why this administration would make such an apparently boneheaded move. Don't they know that there's at least an even chance that the next president will be either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama? Don't they know that delaying this case means that it could be decided by a court with a new justice appointed by one of them? Don't they know that getting this decided before the election would lock the collective rights argument out of any future discussions?
Assume for a minute that perhaps they actually do understand all those things. What possible motive could there be for jeopardizing the opportunity to settle this now? I found one...it's oblique, and I think it gives WAY too much credit for savvy to the administration, but it's the first one I tried out that even marginally fit.
If the court kicks this can down the road and leaves the principal issues unresolved, that makes the election all the more important. Everyone with even a remote interest in maintaining an individual right to keep and bear arms, which based on a Zogby poll of last year looks like over 65%, will have to weigh their decision on who to vote for on that balance as well as on whatever other political, economic, or social issues drive them. The NRA will be even more energized - and new members will flock to the ranks, much as I did in the run-up to 2000. The argument that this election has implications for future freedom like few others in recent memory gains credibility, even though it has been all but worn out during every general election from 2000 onward.
Is it possible that this brief was submitted to awaken and unite gun owners in search of their Second Amendment rights and get them to vote realizing much more than the next president is at stake? It may be too clever by half, especially for this administration, but maybe they're better chess players than I've given them credit for...
The other reason is that perhaps they really do believe that "shall not be infringed" means something other than the plain words of the text reveal. The argument that this decision could also overturn all specific weapon type bans, including the current ban on newly manufactured automatic firearms, is a stretch based on the limited scope of the question being considered. Unfortunately, the inJustice Department appears to believe that the existing infringements are legitimate under "a more flexible standard of review." After the 2004 paper defending the individual right, it can hardly seem possible that between "people" and "not be infringed" there is time in six words to change from originalist to living documentarian.
Posted by: Desert Lion at January 11, 2008 11:20 PM
Ron Paul would gladly comment on this! He is the only candidate standing up for traditional conservative values.
Posted by: freedomisnotfree at January 11, 2008 11:27 PM
We need to go on the attack.
We need to begin work on repealing the "National Firearms Act."
Not because I think full auto weapons are particularly useful, but because the NFA gives government bureaucrats the wrongheaded idea that their authority flows from them to us rather than the other way around.
I now officially hate the "Republican" party more than I hated it before.
From now until election day, I will be giving a monthly monetary donation to whichever candidate shows strongest support for the 2nd Amendment.
If Fred Thompson does not start showing signs of life, I am now going to begin giving my monthly 2nd Amendment fund donation to the only other candidate out there who seems to care about protecting the 2nd Amendment: RON PAUL!
I hope Fred Thompson and Ron Paul get interviewed for their opinions on this latest trick being played by the solicitor general.
I need to know where to send my 2nd Amendment fund.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at January 11, 2008 11:29 PM
While this sort of idiocy does indeed heat up the blood, let's not talk--too quickly--about leaving the Republican party. Leave the party and join who? What? The Democrats would surely push matters as far as possible, potentially even past an absolute ban into seizure of firearms. That would be better than the DOJ stance?
There are ways to punish wayward Republicans, such as letting them know in clear terms that they won't get a penny of support unless this sort of betrayal is quickly reversed.
Posted by: Mike at January 11, 2008 11:36 PM
I'm Shocked! The Government arguing against a right reserved to the people? The Bill of Rights, intended to limit the power of the government and not the people. It sure does sound like history repeating itself.
Is that George W. Bush or George The III, King of England?
God Save the Commonwealth!
Posted by: Rudy DiGiacinto at January 11, 2008 11:43 PM
And if the trigger-lock pro-vision can be construed in such a manner, the courts below would be required to address the factual is-sue—not fully explored during the prior course of the litigation—whether the firearms that are lawfully available to respondent are significantly less suited to the identified lawful purpose (self-defense in the home) than the type of firearm (i.e., a handgun) that D.C. law bars respondent from possessing.9 .
So, Pardon me, but are they trying to imply that there should be some sort of "test" that determines what sort of arms are necessary to protect ourself or our homes?
And, if so and we reverse the argument, then, are they saying, if I build an actual castle that can only be breached by cannon, am I allowed then to own a cannon to defend my home?
whoever wrote this argument is an idiot. This is what happens when government tries to interpret things too narrowly, they always leave open the other options because its impossible write or imagine every possible weapon on the market or available in the future.
The framers did not specify "arms" because, even in their life time, "arms" had been technologically advanced to include much more accurate rifled barrels, though it was limited and bigger and better cannon. They were not using the generic "arms" because they never imagined machine guns, but because they could.
Or, maybe Jefferson, et al had never seen a re-printed Da Vinci drawing or the multi-barreled medieval matchlock (precursor to the gatling by a few hundred years).
seriously, who makes these arguments?
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 11, 2008 11:47 PM
Apples don't fall far from the tree. His Daddy was no damn good either.
Posted by: straightarrow at January 12, 2008 12:25 AM
Not another Bush. Good up front but watch behind the scenes. We desperetly need about 5 Presidents in a row who have so much as never even visited DC as a tourist.
Posted by: Ralph at January 12, 2008 12:48 AM
The notion that the DOJ somehow represents the White House is ludicrous on the face of it. The DOJ is still a creature of the Clinton administration, dating from the moment that Clinton fired all the US attorneys (one of his first acts as President, and totally unprecedented in American history). GWB, for all his supposedly fascist tendencies, refused to repeat this travesty.
The only good thing about this is that the DOJ argument is extraordinarily weak. Do I understand correctly that the DOJ is arguing that the right to bear arms is an individual right? That would be progress. If the bureaucrats are finally willing to concede that the Bill of Rights means what it obviously means, namely that the rights stated are absolute rights of the states and the people, then the battle is largely won. Maybe next the Court will actually uphold the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I can't see any way that the Court will not uphold these rights, but I admit that I've been gravely disappointed before.
Posted by: Pink Pig at January 12, 2008 12:51 AM
That being said i'm supporting Fred. We need better nominees.
Posted by: Ralph at January 12, 2008 12:52 AM
Pink Pig -
If you're right this brief will be withdrawn in short order. Otherwise you're engaging in wishful thinking.
Posted by: Ralph at January 12, 2008 12:54 AM
That is just garbage. So scared of a categorical view, that they insult the intelligence of the SC. And what about modern means of freedom of the press, are they somehow more subject to regulation than what was commonplace at the time of ratification? Twisted logic.
I hope the SC ignores this.
Posted by: Stan at January 12, 2008 01:47 AM
Two quick comments:
First, I just read Paul Clement's bio and saw that he was a clerk for Judge Silberman who wrote the Heller decision and a clerk for Justice Scalia. I wonder if the SCOTUS will give it any more weight because of this.
Second, what the hell is the Chief Counsel for BATFE doing signing the brief in the Heller case? I would have kept those bumbling idiots as far away from any gun case as I could.
Posted by: JRichardson at January 12, 2008 01:52 AM
Hmm, on one hand, it almost seems like they want to remand it so the lower court who can then come up with a bulletproof standard which will convince Kennedy.
On the other, it sounds like they're more worried about their precious machine gun ban. Which for the life of me I cannot understand how it's so "necessary" for "public safety," being that only one person was ever killed by a registered machine gun before the ban. And the killer in that case was a LEO who would be exempt from the ban.
Were the ban so "necessary," it wouldn't have been sneaked into the GOPA in the middle of the night.
Posted by: illspirit at January 12, 2008 01:56 AM
Not surprising. It's not even the only hosing for gun owners emanating from Bush this week.
Republicans including Tom Coburn (!) and John Boehner (who normally never lifts a finger for anything that's not a priority for the K Street crowd) joined with Chuck Schumer and the far-left end of the Dems, to ram through the Veterans Disarmament Act, and Bush apparently is going to sign it.
This is the law that restores the legal basis for the BATFE policy of seizing the weapons from any combat vets who have sought PTSD treatment. One reason I give the VA an extremely wide berth... they can't be trusted to act in a patient's, rather than government's, best interest, in those frequent cases where the interests diverge.
Remember that when Ashcroft left and Gonzales came in, a pro-2A stalwart (and his people) was replaced at Justice by an anti-gun liberal (and his people). Mukasey seems to be following Gonzo, not Ashcroft.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. O'Brien at January 12, 2008 02:13 AM
After reading it again, it appears the arguments the Government makes are ones that are not before the court. Whether Felons can posses firearms, machine guns etc. is not a question before the court. It's a side issue. The issue is can Heller posses a handgun. That is what is before the court in the Record. This is a narrow question and one which this Court can decide now. Heller is not a Felon. Heller is not asking for a machine gun. Heller is only asking to posses the most effective firearm for self-defense for city dwellers. Everything else the Government talks about is best saved for another day as stated by the Appeals Court.
Posted by: Rudy DiGiacinto at January 12, 2008 02:17 AM
The Republican Party has put us all up for sale since Bush stepped into the White House. He is the worst president we have ever had while possibly the best president Mexico has had in half a century. We are all screwed and the entire Republican Party has done the screwing.
Posted by: Howard Veit at January 12, 2008 03:07 AM
There is a word for Presidents Bush #41 & 43. Quislings.
Warning to the Republican Party.
The gun forums are burning up with this guys.
This was the last straw. A lot are saying if
anyone but FDT gets the nod, Gun owners will either stay home or vote for Ron Paul if he goes third party candidate. No joke. No more voting for RINOs. Ever.
Posted by: Steve at January 12, 2008 03:57 AM
I'm actually a little surprised at just how weak the DOJ/BATFE's disagreement with the DC Appeals Court actually is.
They spend a considerable amount of time pointing out that the 2A is unambiguously an individual right, point out that the militia is composed of the body of the people who were expected to show up with their own weapons which were of the same type in common use at the time, and that the 2A was also intended to provide protection from the abuses of the federal government itself...
...and then turn right around and say that it's a reasonable regulation for the government to decide which types of "arms" are okay for the public to own.
The right protected by the Second Amendment is a right to “keep and bear Arms,” not a right to possess any specific type of firearm. A ban on a type or class of firearms, such as machineguns, is not unconstitutional just because it is categorical. A number of factors—including whether a particular kind of firearm is commonly possessed, poses specific dangers, or has unique uses, as well as the availability of functional alternatives—are relevant to the constitutional analysis.
History also supports that conclusion. Because Founding-era militia members were expected to procure their own firearms and to bring those guns when called to service, see p. 16, supra, the militia could not have been “well regulated” if individuals had unrestricted freedom to choose which “Arms” they would possess. Rather, it was essential to the effective operation of the militia as then constituted that government officials be authorized to specify the weapons that individual members would be required to procure and maintain.
The entire thrust of their argument seems to be, "sure, the second amendment protects a pre-existing individual right which was created in part so that the citizenry should have military parity with any standing army that might exist, but we still don't want you to have machine guns, so nyah-nyah".
Posted by: jesse at January 12, 2008 04:42 AM
Too late, DLawson, you made that list (as did we all) as soon as you said the government should obey the Constitution.
Posted by: SDN at January 12, 2008 04:48 AM
This is pretty depressing. It would be really great if the republican party could get a real conservative as president one of these days. I feel like we have been wandering in the desert since 88.
Even the giant push for small government in the mid 90s that got both houses for the republicans seems to have been betrayed.
Posted by: Jim W at January 12, 2008 05:55 AM
So, the Bush Administration DoJ (don't they wish they cleaned out the Clintonistas years ago?) says that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but DC can impose a collective ban on firearms.
Maybe instead of wasting his time on the Middle East Peace Process (Iraq has a more effective peace process which consists of 'KILL the BAD guys'), Bush ought to control his administration here at home.
Let's see, Bush the Elder had 4 years as President, which gave us 8 long years of Clinton. Will the GOP ever be able to recover from 8 years of Bush 2, The Return of the Undead? The Bush Family business is politics, Dubya has destroyed his Family business.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at January 12, 2008 06:15 AM
How is this news? From the start, the Bush administration has taken the position that 'the RKBA is an individual right and so what?' Individual rights don't matter to those who govern because to them, "individual" means "powerless."
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at January 12, 2008 06:17 AM
The first 20 pages of the brief are pretty good.
The citation to Burdick v Takushi is an interesting one. Burdick is in turn citing Anderson v Celebrezze, for the 4 part balancing test used in ballot access cases. Anderson won his case.
Also, the Anderson standard has been modified by Norman v Reed (severe burdens get strict scrutiny) and Burdick (trivial burdens get lax scrutiny.)
The DC gun handban is a severe burden on the right to carry. Perhaps triggerlocks are a more modest burden, and would get Anderson balancing review under that framework. None of the DC regulations strike me as trivial. Rokita, the voter ID case just argued, may give us more feedback on this standard of review. The court below erred in applying Burdick's lax review standard, so the court took the case to do a better job, although we don't know yet which way it will come down.
- Robbin Stewart
Posted by: arbitraryaardvark at January 12, 2008 06:27 AM
I don't think the government's action has to do with hostility to gun rights per se. I think it has more to do with a mindset that insists on a very broad construction of the Constitution. If the DC Circuit's insistence on a narrow reading of the Second Amendment (that is, that it means what it says, not what advocates of a strong central government would like it to mean) is allowed to stand, then much of the federal government's apparatus and power comes into question via the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If those two Amendments are taken to mean what they say, then much of what Uncle Sam does is unconstitutional on its face, and the whole edifice of federal power, dating back to the Progressive Era and New Deal, comes crashing down.
I think that is what has got the wind up the DOJ's lawyers' trousers.
Posted by: Hale Adams at January 12, 2008 06:31 AM
Jim; we've had a couple of good presidents since 1788, but overall I'd agree.
Posted by: KD5NRH at January 12, 2008 06:34 AM
Hard to believe I once admired W! Like Colin, Condolisa & other "Republicans" they may have a pet cause, like Iraq for W, that they hang tough on; but when push comes to shove, they can be counted on to give in to the faceless bureaucracy that forever runs DC. It's like Israel (almost) has a right to exist; we (almost) have a right to be armed; political speech is (almost) protected; We are (almost) a country with borders worth defending. Anything else you intend to surrender for us today George?
Posted by: Larry F at January 12, 2008 06:42 AM
+1 on the post above. Absolutely correct. While guns are very very very important to me, I'm not a single issue voter. But just about every other issue this administration has worked on has turned out bad.
We could have gotten amnesty, Education Bill, Medicare expansion, abandoning Israel, Campaing Finance Reform signed, and just about everything else with a Democrat.
I know some of the posts above are trying to find the sunny side of this but there is no sunny side. The issue of machine gun bans was not even raised in the D.C. gun ban. The DOJ didn't need to say anything. Sure, they may not come out directly and say the handgun ban is constitutional but they argue it could be. They should have just kept their mouths shut.
Posted by: Maxpwr at January 12, 2008 06:50 AM
Is this amicus brief a recent development or is it just some more inertia from Alberto Gonzalez reign of incompetence?
Posted by: Mark in Texas at January 12, 2008 07:16 AM
You've got to be kidding me. While I have not considered myself a Republican for some time, I usually hold my nose and vote for them come election time. They are really making it harder and harder to do that.
Posted by: TSBAKER at January 12, 2008 07:29 AM
Does the DOJ argue that SCOTUS could decide that machineguns cannot be banned, as long as they are kept triggerlocked?
Posted by: Old Easterner at January 12, 2008 07:31 AM
Another crowning achievement for Bush. What has he done right?
No more Bushes, and no more Clintons.
Posted by: bill-tb at January 12, 2008 07:32 AM
Wow. Once again W or one of his country club castrati (r)epublicans screws us. Other than fighting the war on terror the man is useless.
Posted by: Eric Chamblee at January 12, 2008 07:41 AM
And yet, the Republican appartatus wants to see McCain in office.
I'm a 9/11 convert to Conservatism, sometimes it takes a convert to show the establishment what principles they stand for.
Posted by: syn at January 12, 2008 07:43 AM
Well, Bush DID run supporting the 'Assault weapon' ban, until his handlers told him to shut the hell up about his support for gun control. Is anybody surprised that, now that he's not running for reelection, he feels free to act on his actual opinions, instead of his politically required image?
Oh, and in this vein, years after the State department yanked it's Belesilles inspired explanation of the 2nd amendment from it's website, it's still the only article of the Bill of Rights that doesn't have an essay; Been up for review since the first term, I believe.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore at January 12, 2008 07:44 AM
Strict Scrutiny--statute must advance some compelling govt. interest
Intermediate Scrutiny--Statute must be important to some legitimate govt. interest
Rational Basis Scrutiny--statute must have some rational connection to a legitimate govt. interest.
I don't think the DC law passes even the rational basis test because it prohibits everyone from possessing a handgun without regard to any reason whatsoever except the general reason of reducing crime. But if honestly reviewed general prohibitions of guns do not have any rational connection to the prevention or reduction of crime.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at January 12, 2008 08:26 AM
Simply amazing. I guess "they" really do want the American Civil War Part 2.
Posted by: Snooper at January 12, 2008 08:45 AM
Repeat after me: "Republican" does NOT equal "conservative".
Even the sainted Reagan was no Second Amendment advocate -- he signed the law making illegal the importation of new automatic weapons.
Posted by: mariner at January 12, 2008 08:58 AM
The DOJ, like the BLM, is infested with Democratic (and Republikan RINOs) anti-gun holdovers from previous administrations.
Posted by: Skyviking at January 12, 2008 09:21 AM
The 2nd Amendment comes down to a single issue - Trust. Our government does not trust us as citizens. A look at all the handouts and the shift towards a nanny state shows this. How can they trust/control us when we still have firearms at our disposal as a tool to keep them in check? Those in our government need to remember that it is for us, by us and should be of us. They should fear us instead of us living in fear of them.
I remember hearing something about Bush being a conservative once, I'm beginning to think it was an article published by The Onion.
Posted by: Sean at January 12, 2008 09:25 AM
To the individual above who thinks Fred Thompson would put an end to this, you are sadly mistaken.
Fred talks a good game, but his firearms record is abysmal.
Thompson voted for the Lautenberg Amendment, he voted to admit Clinton appointee and anti-gun activist Margaret Morrow to the federal court bench, and he even voted for a bill that would allow parents to be put in prison for letting their teenage kids TOUCH a semi-auto "assault weapon".
No, Fred's record on guns is just like the rest of his record. He pretends to have a principles, but he doesn't stand by them.
But hey, he's a pretty good actor.
The only candidate running who's NEVER voted for any kind of restriction on gun ownership is Ron Paul.
Posted by: Kent at January 12, 2008 09:26 AM
What bugs me the most is that the DC Circuit's decision allows "reasonable" controls.
DC's laws are not reasonable. They have banned pistols, banned self-loading rifles, and banned a variety of other arms. Of the firearms manufactured or imported into the United States in 2007, I doubt that more than a third would be legal in DC.
I wonder - if we raise enough Hell, can this brief be withdrawn?
Posted by: Mike M. at January 12, 2008 09:31 AM
I think Ron Paul is the only candidate who would actually reverse the tide of the continued erosion of our rights.
Posted by: ralph at January 12, 2008 10:15 AM
What surprises me is that this surprises anyone.
The "firearms that are particularly susceptible to criminal misuse" argument is almost word for word what then Solicitor General Ted Olson used when asking the court not to hear Emerson.
Posted by: David Codrea at January 12, 2008 10:21 AM
There is no doubt now that unless Fred Thompson wins the GOP nomination, gunowners will bolt the GOP or at least stay home. Intermediate standard? What the hell does "shall not be infringed" mean? RKBA is a fundamental right and strict scrutiny is required! (Disclaimer: This is only worth getting worked up over if you still consider the Supreme Court legitimate.)
Posted by: Dave at January 12, 2008 10:28 AM
Send emails to the RNC your congressman, senator, Whitehouse. I did.
Posted by: Stan Herubin at January 12, 2008 11:05 AM
This is EXACTLY why I have a problem
with the way George Bush "runs" the
executive branch. He is better than
Donks. But, just barely.
Basically, "the branch(s)" run him.
Come to my house. . .
"And, pry from my cold dead hands . . ."
Posted by: Dan_P at January 12, 2008 11:28 AM
This would NOT have happened if John Ashcroft was still Attny General!
Posted by: Gil at January 12, 2008 11:35 AM
Someone tell me again why we should vote for any of the Republicans other than Hunter or Thompson in the current crop?
If the Bush DoJ messes up the best chance in 50 years to restore at least one small part of the Bill of Rights to its natural state, I will vote for Hillary and let the USSC go to crap.
Posted by: Tijm at January 12, 2008 11:38 AM
As Rudy pointed out above, "Heller is only asking to posses the most effective firearm for self-defense for city dwellers."
And city dwellers do have an unalienable right to Life.
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
To deny city dwellers the right to possess a handgun would in some scenarios actually deny them their lives.
Apparently the Attorney General and his boss, the President, don't understand that. Hope that the SCOTUS majority will understand it.
Posted by: Mark Wilson at January 12, 2008 12:08 PM
The concept that being a "single issue voter" is somehow a bad or backward thing must be updated if the 2nd amendment--and our freedoms are to survive.
Upon examination no issue should trump these Constitutional ones. Not the economy. Not saving Israel or any other country. Not promoting global free market capitalism. Not hunting. Nothing is more important than saving our Republic.
The plan is to neutralize the effectiveness of single issue voting power by attacking it a narrow minded or ineffectual. If the citizens fall for this trick...slavery is our future.
If the issue is important enought; making that the main focus is the intelligent thing to do.
Posted by: gp martin at January 12, 2008 12:35 PM
Sometimes I wonder if there is anyone awake in the Bush administration?
Posted by: RSweeney at January 12, 2008 12:46 PM
Mike Huckabee is the only candidate on the stump with an active concealed-carry permit. I think gun owners need to start looking to him. He is 100% unabashedly pro-firearm and will put a stop to this nonsense.
Posted by: rmyoungman at January 12, 2008 01:18 PM
This administration just gets better and better!!
Posted by: Your Jewish Master at January 12, 2008 01:20 PM
I wonder if it's possible for an individual citizen to file an Amicus brief with the Supremes? IT might be interesting to force them to consider the arguments that took place about the 2nd in the 1st Congress when the BoR was being proposed. (The members were arguing that Washington could not supress the citizens when an armed army of citizens showed up in Washington protest.
Remember, too, that these same founders put a two year limit on funding for the Army (not so the Navy, which explains the wider use of the Marines on land.....)
Posted by: Tom at January 12, 2008 01:31 PM
Unfortunately, Ron Paul dabbled with RACIST drivel in his political newsletter. If he's not dead politically, he's dying.
Posted by: 30yearprof at January 12, 2008 01:34 PM
At January 12, 2008 08:45 AM, "Snooper," posted:
Simply amazing. I guess "they" really do want the American Civil War Part 2.
I have to second that emotion.
If things suddenly begin to look very bad for law-abiding gun owners (due to victory by a RINO or a Democrat), I can foresee those same folks abiding significantly fewer laws until, God forbid, there are potentially loud, smoky, fire-filled outpourings of popular disapproval reminiscent of Lincoln's days.
Those who occupy positions of trust are completely crazed with power-drunkenness if they imagine that the U.S. citizenry lacks the fighting spirit it once had.
Republican pundits had better be poring over the gun forums to take the pulse of that portion of the nation's electorate.
Law-abiding gun owners make up a huge and fairly predictable voting block.
Best not to infuriate/infringe them.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at January 12, 2008 01:44 PM
I'd think that given what was filed by the supposedly pro-gun Bush Administration, at the very least someone needs to lose their job at the Justice Department to begin the process to make this right.
Posted by: Poshboy at January 12, 2008 02:08 PM
They continue to chip away at our 2nd amendment rights. Little by little they convince us that we must compromise, well there is no compromising freedom for tyranny. The GOP is running 2 candidates that are well known gun grabbers, Romney and Guiliani. Dont trust Thompson, as he sways with the money as a past big D.C. lobbyist. His senate Gun voting record is 60/40 60% pro gun and 40% antigun.It should be 100% pro gun.
The truth is D.C. has higher crime and violence than other cities without strict gun laws. When will these politicos learn that not every gun owner is a criminal?
Posted by: GS at January 12, 2008 02:35 PM
I am hardly a party loyalist, these days, but I fail to see the same ill intent you do. So, they stood for the principle of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right...and you object?
Do you really think the Supreme Court is going to hold it an individual right and strike down DC's law IN ONE CASE?
Try again. You will see one case upholding the principle, with a factual way "out" for Justice Kennedy. Then, the lower courts will try to get around it, and 5 years from now, the SC will take up the conflicts in the circuits and strike down some laws. After the next President gets to fill at least 2 seats.
Seriously, are you really a lawyer? I'd be scared if I was your client and had to depend on your judgment.
Posted by: Some DC Lawyer at January 12, 2008 02:43 PM
It's certain that Ron Paul would also put a stop to this gun-grabbing anti-American BS.
Seriously, all of us who are pro-2nd Amendment need to buy more arms soon before we can't anymore. I'm going to try to do so in such a manner that I don't get onto any government lists.
Jesus, what is this country coming to? How did we let this happen?
Posted by: Amy at January 12, 2008 03:04 PM
Et tu, Bush?
What a stab in the back!
Posted by: Brad at January 12, 2008 04:12 PM
"Fred Thompson would put a stop to this anti-gun rights DOJ stuff, that's for sure"
Just like he defended the 1st amendment from McCain-Feingold...Oh, wait...
Posted by: mockmook at January 12, 2008 05:06 PM
How can anyone who's paid any remote attention to what's happening in this country be at all surprised by this?
But then how could dumbo the deer hunter write what he did about this time last year?
Wake up people. We are at war. NO presidential candidate is going to save you. Vote Ron Paul because of his record, but do it with the knowledge that it will take far more than putting him in the white house to take this country back.
What was it that Jefferson said about spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants every few years?
Posted by: Barry Bright at January 12, 2008 05:34 PM
History also supports that conclusion. Because Founding-era militia members were expected to procure their own firearms and to bring those guns when called to service, see p. 16, supra, the militia could not have been “well regulated” if individuals had unrestricted freedom to choose which “Arms” they would possess. Rather, it was essential to the effective operation of the militia as then constituted that government officials be authorized to specify the weapons that individual members would be required to procure and maintain.
Well, whoever wrote this is highly unfamiliar with militia history and their arming. First, while basic militia rules did express what "arms" they "expected" the militia to carry, these men typically brought with them other arms and did not have exactly the same "arms". Different rifles with different effective ranges and accuracy. Bayonets or not. Pistols. Knives, tomahawks, made their own ammunition (in fact, during one battle, they went to nearby houses and asked for lead candelabra, plates, etc to make more ammo), etc.
In fact, what the militia rules established was not a "limit", but was a "minimum" uniformity necessary to carry out the duties and functions of the militia. At no time did the militia rules state that these members could not have any other weapons on their person or in their homes. This is essentially arguing that the "people" only have a right to bear arms as members of a recognized and "regulated" militia. Something that we reject from any gun control lobby and certainly reject from the "state" (DoJ).
Secondly, this person also obviously totally rejected or purposefully omitted a rather important part of the "militia" history at Lexington.
The "arms" that the British were coming to confiscate included at least two small cannon, large quantities of powder and ball to accompany the weapons. One was hidden in a building and another had been taken apart and parts buried in multiple places.
If we use this test of the founders intent in regards to the citizen militia, then we would be able to conclude that citizens had the right to own cannons since this instance obviously influenced the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And, NOT the spiked variety that is unable to be fired.
One has to really ask the question of who wrote this Amicus brief because it sounds like a first year intern out of Berkley who, conveniently, skipped American history for basket weaving.
If we used this test, we could certainly look at the history of procurement and arming of the militias to validate what "arms" were used thus constitute the "framers' intent". In which case, I wonder if anyone would complain if I stood on a street corner in DC with a fifteen foot pike?
I feel a certain surety that the police would be called ASAP and I would be in the downtown lock up waiting to explain my "militia" constituted "right" to bear "arms" to a judge.
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 12, 2008 06:43 PM
Does amicus on the Parker brief? Can they just tell the DoJ to piss up a rope?
Posted by: Thomas at January 12, 2008 10:03 PM
This is larger than it at first appears. Gun rights advocates have been waiting for years for a case like this to come to the Supreme Court...and what does our Republican Justice Deptartment do? Just imagine if Roe v. Wade were again before the Supreme Court and a Republican Justice Department filed an amicus brief in favor of upholding Roe. This is no different. So after 30 years of supporting Republicans this what we get, betrayed?
Posted by: Mike Gordon at January 12, 2008 10:16 PM
"Someone tell me again why we should vote for any of the Republicans other than Hunter or Thompson in the current crop?"
Hunter and Thompson are CFR,TLC buttpuppets. A vote for any of the Democrats or Republicans is like voting for the same person. Ron Paul is the only real candidate.
Posted by: Ranger at January 12, 2008 11:27 PM
"This is essentially arguing that the "people" only have a right to bear arms as members of a recognized and "regulated" militia."
No, the point is that the "people" only have a _Constitutionally guaranteed_ right to bear arms as members of a well-regulated (i.e. commisioned by the legislature) milita. Sorry, but thats what it says.
It never fails to amaze me how worked up people get over this. Nothing is going to change much one way or the other. Governments have an overriding repsonsibility to ensure law and order - along with defending the country that is their core responsibility, and it sure as hell is going to trump any right to bear arms in cases where the two are judged to conflict.
What kind of a moron would advocate the unrestricted sale and possesion of all manner of firearms in a place like Wash. DC?
Posted by: JoeCitizen at January 13, 2008 12:20 AM
Ooh, ooh, I know this one.
Me. I'm that "moron".
Posted by: jesse at January 13, 2008 12:37 AM
Me. Particularly, and shockingly, because, once upon a time, people did have the right and did own whatever weapons they chose within the DC city limits. Unless you believe in 1861 no one owned a pistol or a rifle in DC. Or in 1901. Or, 1921.
Or, I could go on. the limit was instituted not in defense of the government, but in an effort to allegedly reduce crime. Unless you're saying that's a ruse covering the federal government's attempt to influence local laws in order to effect their own defense (of which they have a police force, the FBI, the ATF, the Secret Service, not to mention military forces and bases near by to effect that defense). What additional defense do they need? Maybe you should give them your first born to hold hostage and insure your proper behavior?
And, by the way, you're comment is splitting hairs. Toe-may-toe...toe-mah-toe. It is the same argument. Bare arms as a militia only. That is the argument being made.
And, frankly, the insistence that the government should be able to limit the arms of the citizen in fear of their own safety basically throws out the entire premise of the Declaration of Independence. That premise begins with the Lockean theory that the people have the right to rebellion against an oppressive government.
Do I think we should overthrow the government today? No. Tomorrow? No. Would I agree with any organization that we should? At this time, no. On the other hand, I am not so fast to disregard the very basis of our nation that, in fact, the armed citizen is the last "balancing power" in this system of government. That "balancing power" is not guaranteed by free speech or voting nor by a piece of paper but by the real power of the citizens. That power is held in check based on the idea that the government recognizes its obligation to its citizens and acts accordingly. thus, negating the need for any use of this final balancing power.
But this is not what is at stake here. This is the very simple and primary right to bare "arms" at all since the law bans "hand guns", the most common weapon used for self defense. Thus, it is not even an argument that the ban is somehow necessary to protect the government or any official.
Certainly, at this moment, there are enough weapons on the streets of DC illegally and in the hands of criminals to actually do the job, ban or not. So, who is being protected?
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 13, 2008 01:56 AM
"Secondly, this person also obviously totally rejected or purposefully omitted a rather important part of the "militia" history at Lexington. The "arms" that the British were coming to confiscate included at least two small cannon...", Kat-Missouri.
Kat do you know specifically who owned those cannon? For such a historical event there must be some record of exactly who owned the famous cannons at risk during the battle of Lexington & Concord!
Posted by: Brad at January 13, 2008 03:16 AM
I hate to quote wikipedia, but it's the first link that comes up among the hundreds discussing the munitions the British were hoping to confiscate or destroy, which they did. At Concord (my mistake in saying "Lexington" and it was three cannon, not two).
Using the detailed information provided by Loyalist spies, the grenadier companies searched the small town for military supplies. When the grenadiers arrived at Ephraim Jones's tavern, by the jail on the South Bridge road, they found the door barred shut, and Jones refused them entry. According to reports provided by local Tories, Pitcairn knew cannon had been buried on the property, so, holding the tavern keeper at gunpoint, he ordered him to show him where the guns were buried. These turned out to be three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, and capable of bombarding the island city of Boston from the mainland (the source of these formidable weapons remains a tantalising mystery). The grenadiers smashed the trunnions of these three guns so they could not be mounted. They also burned some gun carriages found in the village meetinghouse, and when the fire spread to the meetinghouse itself, local resident Martha Moulton persuaded the soldiers to help in a bucket brigade to save the building. Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food, and 550 pounds of musket balls, were thrown into the millpond. All the spiked cannon were repaired the next day, (those with broken trunnions and hammered muzzles were not, however) and all the shot was also recovered.
Barrett's house had been an arsenal weeks before but few weapons remained now, and these were, according to family legend, quickly buried in furrows to look like a crop had been planted.
As to who purchased them, the record seems unclear as to the origination, but clear as to possessed them at the time of the raid: the private citizen militia of Concord. AND as the federal government of the United STates did not exist at the time, nor formal declaration of Independence nor formally accepted intent to establish a separate government (Ben Franklin having continued to attempt to re-establish relations and rights within the British parliament), nor revenues raised or spent by any such non-existent government to procure those cannon, that would make it the private property the private citizens of Concord. It certainly did not belong to the British and they certainly did not provide it (at least willingly) to the rebels.
I would surmise, in fact, that they were either purchased by a private benefactor for the citizen militia or by the auspices of the citizens pooling their money. It may shock modern citizens, but private citizens could, in fact, purchase cannon from a manufacturer at that time. Many purchases were in relation to arming private merchant ships to protect them against pirates and privateers.
Private property. Private Citizens. Arming themselves as they felt necessary without the direction, interference or regulation of any government as they saw fit to effect their security.
As I said, the argument for a mystical historical precedent for limiting arms of citizens as members of a militia based on some alleged government regulations is lame, if not egregious and absolutely inaccurate.
any other questions?
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 13, 2008 05:13 AM
And, I might add, if the cannon were buried or housed on Barret's property, then we could surmise, possession being 9/10's of the law, that the cannons were Barret's. We could even construe by the fact that he owned the local tavern and may have had sufficient funds to purchase at least one cannon, if not more that he was not only in possession, but actually purchased them.
the only thing we can say for sure is that they were not bought by any government agent or agency with any government money. Said government not existing.
Posted by: kat-missouri at January 13, 2008 05:20 AM
Since when is a right subject to "flexible review"? Why is our 2nd amendment the only right subject to such "review". I believe the words "shall not be infringed" say it all. The ban on automatic weapons is just as asinine. How does keeping ANY type of firearm from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS prevent crime. I don't own an automatic weapon, but many gang members in MA DO. This makes me more protected how? We need to adopt a policy of personal responsibility, remember, a government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take everything away.
Posted by: MA Marine at January 13, 2008 05:40 AM
I get so sick of hearing "our" elected morons doing everything they can to destroy American!
They are doing a better job of it than our enemies. Take away gun rights and we come under the mercy of criminals and I don't mean congress. Australia took away guns and the crime has rocketed, what the heck, whose to stop crooks now? The police that can take up to ten minutes to arrive, IF you can call them with a gun poking your midsection. Great Britain did the same thing and are suffering the same loss of control of their criminal element.
We are a 2nd Amendment right country, that cannot be allowed to be diminished even in the District of Columbia!
The country needs nationwide CCW, it only needs a few more states and DC to have FULL coverage.
See the animated gif on this website, PLEASE!
You will love it.
Posted by: Dennis at January 13, 2008 07:41 AM
I guess it would be best to attach the site, DUH!
I like guns, I just can't think straight during an election, to many lies.
Posted by: Dennis at January 13, 2008 07:46 AM
Tired of all the Washington double talk? Well, here is something simple. You will get my handgun when you prise my cold dead fingers from around it. I will fight in the street if necessary.
Posted by: Terry at January 13, 2008 10:03 AM
An earlier post said the government had an "overiding" responsibilty to maintain "law and order" The poster used this as a way of saying that this trumps a Constitutional right.
Truth is-since it is the People that created the Constitution and the Constitution that created the government; our rights under that Constitution trump everything else. Allowing a law abiding citizen to have any type of arm is the Right.
The assumption that an honest-law abiding citizen cannot be trusted is exactly what the Founding Fathers were fighting. It is why the United States of America was created.
Posted by: gpmartin at January 13, 2008 10:36 AM
If the men in black swallow this crap we are no better off than many third world toilets around the globe. But then again there was New London vs Kelo. Land of individual Rights. What a joke.
Posted by: jug at January 13, 2008 11:07 AM
This should, I hope, show the politicos that the Constitution does indeed mean what it says. Mind you, this being a political year, how will they twist it? I agree, how did Scalia react? Question is, how many of the other justices see adherence to legal documents as a priority?
Posted by: cmblake6 at January 13, 2008 02:49 PM
Anybody who believes that the 2A means what it says had best have some alternative plans.
You/we are not going to like what the Heller majority says later this year.
Plan for the absolute Worst, then indulge hope, naivete, and outright fantasy.
G-d help us all.
Posted by: cabinboy at January 13, 2008 04:16 PM
I am certain there are discussion forums more appropriate than this one for the "cold dead hands/all is lost/God help us all/better be prepared" types.
I know of a few of those forums myself, and tellingly absent from them is rational and objective discussion of real-world legal matters.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at January 13, 2008 06:29 PM
Acting Attorney General Paul D. Clement.
A Bush appointee.
No more excuses, I guess, for this bit of gun-grabbing.
Posted by: Kristopher at January 13, 2008 08:07 PM
Like father like son. Bastards
Posted by: Gary Smith at January 13, 2008 09:08 PM
Government by, for, and of the people no longer exists. Government is no longer your servant, its your master!
Posted by: David at January 13, 2008 09:55 PM
Check out Mike Huckabee. He's a true sportsman and has a CCW permit. He may be our best chance to get a 2nd ammendment supporter in the Oval Office.
Posted by: roscoe ressen at January 13, 2008 10:37 PM
Ron Paul. Seriously, we need Ron Paul. We need government out of the business of destroying our Constitution. Let's vote Ron Paul!
Posted by: Paul at January 14, 2008 01:44 AM
We have to stop voting for the status quo. If you choose to support and vote for anyone other than Ron Paul you will be voting the "statu quo".
We need to look past the media's bias and smear tactics such as Fox News trying to define who or what is a Republican like in their last debate held in South Carolina. IT WAS A BLATANT AND ARROGANT disregard to letting the people decide.
YOU want more control? Then vote for the Bush substitutes. The Republican party is the problem unless we the people say enough is enough!
Google Ron Paul.
Support Ron Paul!
Vote Ron Paul!
He is the real freedom candidate.
Posted by: Todd at January 14, 2008 04:50 AM
Mark my words, as soon as the government gets all of our guns, we become SLAVES.
Posted by: Worthless Opinion at January 14, 2008 06:34 AM
Just remember that government at all levels - municipal, state, national - has a natural tendency to seek to increase its powers at the expense of citizens' rights.
Posted by: Mark Benenson at January 14, 2008 07:11 AM
Ron Paul has always taken a stance against unconstitutional laws, bills and rulings. It isn't fair to say it's the Republicans, it's Bush! He's an egomaniac and wants total control; he doesn't care if he destroys the Republican party, or this country! All Republicans aren't bad, all Democrats aren't bad either; hell, I can think of three of each I'd vote for! Sorry to say, only ONE is running for President! Ron Paul votes against everything that goes against our Constitution! That's why they call him "Dr. NO"!
Posted by: Buddy at January 14, 2008 08:29 AM
An earlier post seemed to lament the presence on this board of post that took an emotional view of the issue.
That poster should remember that it was more than rational thought that created this country and our Constitutional rights.
The energy from the zealots provide the heat needed to make the brew as much as a level spoon.
Posted by: gpmartin at January 14, 2008 08:51 AM
GS got it right.
While I am outraged at the brief, I think it was targeted to Kennedy (Anthony that is) as the swing vote to make sure the individual right aspect was affirmed but to permit regulations.
But this is not how the Bill of Rights work. Any regulation of the 2A is entitled to strict scrutiny, and any other test is BS.
Posted by: Ron at January 14, 2008 10:17 AM
The SG's brief is about, and only about, the NFA and 18 USC section 922(o). Period. End of story. If the Second Amendment means strict scrutiny, the whole NFA taxation and 922(o) ban on post-1986 transferable machine guns scheme of regulation is at risk. With only heightened scrutiny, not so much.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at January 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Carl in Chicago:
Might you be so kind as to share with us, the hulking and ignorant unwashed, your "rational and objective discussion of real-world legal matters" regarding the Second Amendment and its safeguards against government infringements on right to keep and bear arms in your home city, as well as the state of Illinois?
Last time I checked, y'all had a bit of a problem....
It is truly appalling how many attorneys are willing to cede to nine frail human beings the power to define and confine God-given rights.
I believe the applicable phrase is "captured by the system."
With due respect,
Former NYC Prosecutor
Current Regulatory Attorney
Admitted to NY Bar 12/89
Posted by: cabinboy at January 14, 2008 11:49 AM
"Fred Thompson would put a stop to this anti-gun rights DOJ stuff, that's for sure."
Is it really? I, for one, am not convinced: All of Fred Thompson's "credentials" in such matters appear to me to be contrived for effect, rather than expressed from the heart.
But then, your statement is correct -- correct as proved by actual history, not platform -- if you make the statement with a name change: "Ron Paul would put a stop to this anti-gun rights DOJ stuff, that's for sure."
Ron Paul has NEVER failed to vote pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Donald L. Cline at January 14, 2008 08:02 PM
I'm not trying to pick on you, just pointing something out.
If you think you're going to get anything different from Mr. "acting" conservative Thompson you are mistaken.
Fred will not do any better than our current Pres. Bush.
Tally Freds votes. In total, GOA tracked 33 votes in the U.S. Senate while Thompson was there. He voted pro-gun just 20 times out of 33, I'm not impressed nor should you be. Those votes are detailed below. Compare Fred with Ron Paul at this same site.
The Republicans, yes most if not all have gone astray from OUR roots. See here.
Have a freedom loving day.
Vote Ron Paul
Posted by: Todd at January 14, 2008 10:16 PM
I mistakenly targeted you with my last post. I meant if for those who were thinking Fred would protect their gun rights when he has a record on not doing so.
Posted by: todd at January 14, 2008 10:28 PM
I support the 2 A and will vote accordingly..
Posted by: Patrick Hutchens at January 15, 2008 03:32 AM
And I thought the Bush Administration
supported the Individual Rights Standard Model?
Posted by: Marcus Poulin at January 15, 2008 06:01 AM
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private newspaper & internet access would entail, various categories of newspaper & internet-related regulation are permitted by the First Amendment, Thus intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny should be used when judging the constitutionality of laws restricting the first amendment" - future quote from another ambitious career politican.
I wonder what the MSM would say if this reasoning was ever used by a politican when trying to restrict the first amendment.
Posted by: Bill at January 15, 2008 12:53 PM
"A place like Washington, D. C.?"
What, you mean a place full of dark skinned poor people?
Posted by: staghounds at January 16, 2008 10:23 AM
few individuals among them may, and in reality sometimes is. The demand of LdKdggKrCB A banking company which issues more paper than can be employed in the
Posted by: Iris at January 18, 2008 04:23 AM
Let us NOT forget the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to act as an protection against government, not invaders. The purpose of a well armed people was make sure the government which the people created did NOT get out of control as it is RIGHT NOW! People ask your selves, are you afraid of government or are they afraid of US? Hmm....? Servants of the people my ass! We have to beg these bastards even hear grievances. Even in D.C. the cops hide the people from presidential motorcades so he doesn't have to see or hear the "rabble". Where the hell is everyones balls???
Posted by: Leo at January 24, 2008 11:06 PM