It would be like Christmas in January!
Posted on 01/16/2008 11:24:30 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Gun rights advocates were understandably dismayed when the Bush Administration Justice Department submitted a brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, the big Second Amendent case to be argued later this term, calling for a remand of the case for reconsideration of D.C.'s gun laws under a less demanding constitutional standard. Given the Bush Administration's support for an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment, many find it incomprehensible that the Administration would not support the D.C. Circuit decision holding D.C.'s draconian gun restrictions unconstitutional. The DoJ's brief is also a potentially unwelcome development in the Presidential race, as it could dampen gun owners' support of GOP candidates.
I do not know whether any of the other campaigns have taken notice of the DoJ brief, but Fred has. As reported on RedState, Thompson accused the administration of "overlawyering" the case. After all, if an individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not proscribe an outright ban on handgun possession, there is not much left of the rights it purportedly protects.
Fred’s view on the Constitution is heads and shoulders about the rest.
Good for Fred.
Cool...
Outstanding! Speak truth to power Fred!
It would be like Christmas in January!
Idiots like Huckabee want to criticize the Bush administration over his prosecution of the war on Islamo Fascists (one of the few things Bush has done right), but won’t say a word about some of the really stupid things his administration has done. Like filing this amicus brief.
Fred gets the 2A. It’s not about hunting varmints Mitt. Its about all of us owning fire arms to “protect us from all of you” (as Suzanna Haupp said while testifying before Congress)
Machine guns! Did we mention machine guns? We're talking about machine guns here, people. So ban handguns or else. We're not sure how that's related. -Bush DOJ
Judges, judges, judges. Those are three of the most important tissues a President will deal with.
Thompson is the only candidate I trust to appoint judges who understand that the Constitution and the law mean what they say, and not what the judge wants them to say.
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/
Kudos to McFred. Seriously.
Bush is becoming more like McCain the longer he stays in Washington. Whenver, the GOP is about to win something they both jump in and screw everything up.
Troll.
“I’d sure like the NRA to show its appreciation right before the SC primary with an endorsement.”
Why the NRA has not already endorsed Fred is beyond me. They could provide a big boost. Lets see,
Mitt talks about hunting varmints as a kid to boost his 2A credentials.
Huckabee has pictures taken hunting pheasant to boost his 2A credentials.
Fred visits gun stores, gun shows and comes out with statements like this to show his 2A credentials. You tell me who gets it...
Bush is selling us out.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
on this issue of second amendment.
Other candidates posed while hunting for birds,
Thompson is the only one who actually went to a gun show where registered voters are located.
People who can talk to candidate vs dead birds which do NOT talk to candidates.
We NEED Fred Thompson.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was waiting, and hoping, that Fred would come out against this.
South Carolina:
Forget about the old, tired, war hero. He served his country in the military but he’s unfit for the presidency.
The slick Yankee governor is “OK” but he’d never say something like this.
The preacher-man from Arkansas might sound good, but he’s as slimy as Jim Bakker at a K-Y wrestling match at an all-girls school.
The OTHER Yankee in this race will TAKE your guns and be happy about it.
That leaves the REAL CONSERVATIVE. The REAL deal. Fred D. Thompson. For President in 2008.
But will this news release get out to the public and also the NRA? Hope Fred repeats this over and over in South Carolina at his events today, tomorrow and Friday! Does anyone know where the NRA is in their endorsement process. Heard a long time back that they were going over the questionaires the candidates returned. Seems about time they came out and endorsed! GO FRED!
Wrong, ostrich head. I've been a member of this site 9 years longer than you. Just did a quick internet search after seeing this article. Face the facts. There is no perfect "conservative" candidate. All you Fred-heads are denying the truth in your adoration of the man.
Applause for Fred on this conservative issue.
Go Fred, SLAM the others for not voicing outrage at the bush admin brief!
Bump.
I’m not Huckabee fan, but I believe he has his CCW.
Huckabee is the only reason that the NRA hasn’t endorsed Fred already.
Huck is the only other top tier candidate with a good record on guns. As long as Huck stays in the top tier they wont endorse.
By the time Huck falls it may be too late for the NRA to make any difference in the race.
Troll? Maybe not.
Fred-hating Huckabee kool-aid drinker?
Probably.
Yeah, according to Fox news (report from when his doofus son was arrested for carrying a loaded Glock thru airport security), he does have CCW:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268762,00.html
Do you happen to have the full quote handy. I hate it when someone uses one word in this case “overlawyering” to write an article. Redstate basically did the same thing and then quoted the author of the article on a previous blog.
I make of it: distortion, errors, and real stretches. See analysis by ellery for more details.
I don’t think having a CCW makes you a conservative.
I agree, I don’t like the Huckster but I trust him on this issue.
You want to shoot down the GOA’s “anti-gun FRed” lies again?
Here’s the video of Suzanne Hupp testifying before congress.
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/23/35/
Just one final statement.
I’ve been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these, pieces of machinery, having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose, people, that is not the point of the second amendment!
The second amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect our selves from all of you guys up there.
And nobody’s talked about that.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia, Killeen massacre survivor who watched as her parents were murdered because she obeyed Texas law and left her handgun locked in her car. Appearing before Rep Schumer’s committee hearings on the assault weapons ban
I agree, then endorsement will mean nothing or have no effect if they wait too much longer.
Kool-aid drinker! That's funny coming from the ranks of the self proclaimed Fred-heads. Truth is I don't hate Thompson or any of the Republican candidates. But I'm not going to blind myself to their weaknesses (like you) either. If you can't handle the truth, don't take it out on me.
“Overlawyering” DC v. Heller
Posted on January 16th, 2008
By Sean Hackbarth in Law, Second Amendment
Gamecock at RedState liked what he heard at one of Fred’s radio town halls yesterday. Fred talked about the case involving Washington, D.C.’s gun control law that’s being challenged in the Supreme Court:
Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General’s request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for “fact-finding”, the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was “overlawyering” and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fred is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Last year, Fred wrote about District of Columbia v. Heller:
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
[Cross-posted from Lawyers for Fred]
UPDATE: Jonathan Adler notes Fred is the first candidate to speak out about the administration’s actions.
The only candidate you go easy on is Huckabee. Is that your choice?
Or are you one of the ones that NOBODY is good enough for, and therefore you spend your time bitching?
So far, that’s all that’s available on FRed 08, but this is his previous statement on the case.
Last year, Fred wrote about District of Columbia v. Heller:
Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time,
and the first step is necessarily — given the
political realities — going to be very modest .
.. So then we’ll have to start working again to
strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen
the next law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half
a loaf but with a slice.
Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in
the United States — is going to take time ....
The first problem is to slow down the increasing
number of guns being produced and sold in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of *all*
handguns and *all* handgun ammunition — except for the
military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally
illegal.”
— Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.
( “The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976 )
Yeah. I have nothing against Huck’s God and Guns beliefs, but Fred is clearly the more conservative of the two, judging from Huck’s actions while governor of Arkansas.
(What is it about these Arkansas governors?)
Fred is the only one who has come out and said that his idea of gun control is a firm grip with both hands.
People wonder about those that only see weakness. Hmmmmm.
He’s not a troll for citing a Senate voting record. Thompson should address these questions before they become fodder for his competitors to hammer him with.
Sorry, I guess you misunderstood me, I read the article. I just wanted the full Fred Thompson Quote from which it is written from.
“Huckabee is the only reason that the NRA hasn’t endorsed Fred already.
Huck is the only other top tier candidate with a good record on guns. As long as Huck stays in the top tier they wont endorse.
By the time Huck falls it may be too late for the NRA to make any difference in the race.”
I agree that Fred and Huckabee are both rated high by the NRA. However, don’t you think the NRA would take a look at their stands on other issues as well? If so, then they would endorse Fred since he is conservative on ALL issues, not just 2nd amendment and being pro-life! Huckabee is a liberal on most other issues! GO FRED!
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.