A few takes on Solicitor General's brief

Brett wasn't doing too badly until the last sentence. Was that last sentence a troll or something? I could imagine someone saying that handguns should be banned because they give more trouble from criminals than they're worth to the militia, but what justification is there to restrict concealed carry? In Vermont a license for concealed carry isn't even necessary. You can walk into a gun store, put your money on the counter, pass an instant background check, and walk out with a gun in your pocket and carry it wherever you go. Still they have one of the lowest homicide rates of any state. And even in states like Florida, with big cities, the granting of concealed carry permits to anyone without convictions, was followed by a drop in homicide rates(some claim a smaller drop than in states that kept concealed carry legal, but a minuscule difference anyway). There is no rational justification to ban concealed carry other than to reduce the popularity of and therefore the political support for guns. So why on earth is it peculiar to oppose such an unjustified infringement of the Second Amendment?

Well, I see Brett went to the old chestnut "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic,"

But I believe few would argue that -- the most stringent protection of the right to bear arms would not protect a man in unreasonably waving a gun in a theater, and causing a panic.

However, most gun laws do not stay within the boundaries of restricting unreasonable actions but rather are more to the extent of severing people's vocal cords due to the risk that they may shout fire or banning someone from talking because they have a large adams apple.

Also, is it just me or is the new argument being presented that there have been gun control laws for almost a century and the people haven't risen up in rebellion so the 2nd amendment doesn't deserve the same level of protection as the other enumerated rights? Kind of a use it or lose it proposition.

Brett's Constitution is out to lunch on this. What good is it to argue that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and at the same time argue, in effect, that there is no conceivable gun control law that would ever violate it? If the DC law does not violate the 2nd Amendment, then no conceivable law ever would and the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter. By asking the Supremes to overturn the DC Circuit the DOJ and the SG are arguing that the 2nd Amendment is a joke.

Thanks for nothing Mr. Bush. Your legacy is going to stink.

From: Doug Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:47 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: FW: Why did I bother?

Mr. President,
Please direct the Solicitor General to withdraw the Amicus brief on Heller vs DC or replace it with one that doesn’t do to the Second Amendment what Kelo did to the Fifth Amendment and McCain-Fenigold did to the First…this has got to stop, or the only legacy this administration is leaving is a trail of un-Constitutional feces.

________________________________________
From: Doug Huggins
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:21 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Why did I bother?

I worked, walked door to door to get out the vote for GW Bush and the Republicans in the last presidential election, and I’ve been a Republican ever since I worked for Barry Goldwater’s campaign as a 13 year old kid...

After having seen the Solicitor General file an Amicus brief saying “the Second Amendment protects an individual right but you can regulate it away”, after seeing GW Bush sign the McCain Feingold Abridgement of Free Speech bill in violation of the First Amendment, I have to wonder why I bothered.

What part of “Congress Shall Make No Law…” or “…Shall Not Be Infringed” …do you not understand?

I’m not sending another penny to the pseudo-Republican party, nor will I contribute ten seconds of my time. This is deeply disgusting. This is no legacy…this is impeachable corruption.

D. Huggins
Colorado

Go thou and do likewise, please.

Ok, this may not be completely on-topic; but why are there SO many briefs in support of the petitioner and none in support of Heller?

Ok, this may not be completely on-topic; but why are there SO many briefs in support of the petitioner and none in support of Heller?


Because the anti-rights/control freaks are running scared. They feel they're getting backed into a corner so they're banding together to fight freedom.

Chris:

That is because the amicus briefs for respondent (Heller) are not due yet. You will see them on about 11 February.

Due dates according to the Supreme Court rules:

Jan 05 2008 Petitioner's Merits Brief

Jan 12 2008 Amici in support of petitioner

Feb 04 2008 Respondent's Merits Brief

Feb 11 2008 Amici in support of respondent

Mar 04 2008 Petitioner's Reply Brief (if any)

Sometime after that....oral arguments (still unscheduled)