« DC gun law in action | Main | Britain to crack down on knife crime »
I suppose there's one comfort for the Solicitor General
The SG has hacked off every gun organization, the Wall St. Journal, the Washington Times and now the Washington Examiner, not to mention half the internet.
But they can take one comfort. The Brady Campaign likes them. Sort of.
Randell Jason writes, in a comment blocked by the spam filter:
There is a really good comment over at The War On
Guns at: <\p>
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/theyre-awake.html#comments
Here's the text:<\p>
"Here's the note that I sent to my representatives
at the prompting of GOA:<\p>
Dear Representative:<\p>
Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a
letter to the White House urging the President to
withdraw the Solicitor General's very ill-advised
brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.<\p>
Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted
about the members of the House who have joined with
Representative Goode.<\p>
The brief is a direct attack on the constitutional
principles upon which this country was founded. The
brief plays an Orwellian/Marxist game whereby it
affirms that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
protects an individual right to own guns, but it then
renders that assertion null and void by claiming that
the aforementioned right may be regulated away for a
"reasonable" purpose.<\p>
Of course, the real meaning of a "reasonable"
purpose is not reasonable at all. It is used solely as
a tool to deceptively take power from one disfavored
group and put it in the hands of a more favored group,
and it is hidden under a false, sanctimonious concern
for protecting the rights of others. If anyone ever
wanted to see the true meaning of "divisiveness" in
action, there is nothing more divisive than wrongfully
stealing rights from one group and transferring them
to another group.<\p>
This whole betrayal reminds me of a similar
betrayal found in George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm."
After the animals had overthrown the old order and
were seeking to consolidate power, they made seven
commandments in order to curry favor with the animals,
and the sixth commandment read as follows, "No animal
shall kill any other animal." After the consolidation
of power was complete and the ruling hierarchy was
firmly entrenched and corrupt, the sixth commandment
was changed in a very subtle way to read, "No animal
shall kill any other animal WITHOUT CAUSE." Of course,
the real reason for the change in the commandment was
to provide the rulers with the seeming right to kill
those who disagreed with the rulers' constant
violations of the seven commandments. This subtle
change in meaning sounds shockingly similar to the
brief's claim that the constitution protects our
rights, unless any of those rights are decreed to be
unreasonable (or "WITHOUT CAUSE").<\p>
This brief appears to be a blatant betrayal of the
Constitution and our Republic. In the words of George
Bush himself, "You are either with us or against
us."<\p>
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Ever since I became one (in 1986), Republicans have been one disappointment after another.
At least 9/10 of R politicians have no policy compass at all. They just blow in the wind. The best thing they have going for them is that they USUALLY vote against the Democrats )is that "on principle"?).
The GOP pols, for the most part, have no fire in the belly. No killer instinct. They don't have the stones to poke somebody in the eye and kick them in the crotch. Win the damned fight. They are afraid that somebody might not like them. "Gee Bluto, I might get in trouble."
Well, not Tom Coburn. He doesn't give a *damn*. He does what he thinks is right and to hell with what anybody else thinks.
Would that we more like him and Jeff Flake.
David,
Don't know if it will do any good, but I have requested my Senator to start a similar letter, and circulate it around for others to endorse as well. You might ask your other readers to do the same. If the administration gets enough flak, they may recind, or change, their brief.
Regards,
PolyKahr
The word “firearm” is mentioned nowhere in the second amendment nor, for that matter, anywhere else in the Constitution. The word “Arms” includes any number of weapons. Handguns and even the Solicitor General’s particular bug-a-boo - the nefarious machine gun - are merely types of “arms”.
The Solicitor General spends a lot of paper space attempting to justify all existing federal firearm regulations and even though he states the 2001 AG position on the individual right concept he still drags the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 into the picture. The 2nd Militia Act of 1792 does furnish guidelines as to the types of weapons and other equipment the militiaman was to furnish when he attended drills. (These guidelines are not as specific as the SG seems to want the SCOTUS to believe.) However, the act did not forbid the militiaman any supplemental weapons (ie. “backup” pistol, knife, tomahawk, or club). It stands to reason that the Congress did have power to strictly regulate not only what the individual militiaman was required to bring to the militia drills but also what he could not bring with him under the powers granted to Congress in Art I. Sec. 8, which the 2nd Amendment apparently does not restrict. It is likely that a 1792 militiaman of Swiss ancestry might have shown up at an infantry drill carrying his great-grandfather’s pike. His “First Sergeant“ would most assuredly have told him to leave it at home when he attended drills in the future, but the order would not have come from Congress. The SG seems to circle around and shoot himself in the foot by actually pointing out the fact that Congress did not proscribe supplemental weaponry to the individual militiaman.
I have read, read again and re-read the Solicitor General’s brief and have come to the conclusion that the Solicitor General seems to be more concerned with job security for several hundreds of federal agents than with the un-infringed individual “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
What we surely do not need is to let the courts legislate gun control issues from the bench...we'll wind up with "bare arms" and "armed bears"...
"...hacked off every gun organization..."
Including some congress critters:
January 22, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of constitutional review.
If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides
-- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.
I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil Goode
R-VA