Posted on 01/19/2008 3:37:45 AM PST by Man50D
A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."
The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.
The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.
But Gun Owners of America, a grass-roots lobby representing more than 300,000 Americans, said the opinion creates a huge threat to the constitutional provision banning the "infringement" of the right to bear arms.
"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional…" Pratt said.
Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes "reasonable," there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
What exactly is a legal brief?
“Death by a thousand cuts” has progressed to “Death by a hundred deep slashes.”
Time to go Life on GOA also.
And people want us to elect another RINO. Many have said, on this forum, it is better to have to fight with and be damaged by the enemy, than by a “friend”.
I must has missed that part in the original document, glad he cleared that up. < / s >
So we now asking the court to define what is and is not a militia firearm ?
More ‘compassionate conservatism’ (aka Republican RINO-virus) at work.
Thanks for your help Jorge.
“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” he wrote in the brief.
Unquestionable? Prove it. Where’s the data? On what does the Soliciter General base this broad assumption?
The administration is seeking a way to get SCOTUS to affirm the individual right recognized in the Second Amendment but still keep in tact the current restrictions. A whole lot gets changed if the court affirms one without the other, I’d say.
Let's see, that would include Romney, McCain, Huck, Rudy, and the guy with two first names. Especially when you toss in, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, Amnesty for Illegals, sanctuary cities, drivers licenses for illegals, and mental instability.
>>>So we now asking the court to define what is and is not a militia firearm ?
Sounds like a back door to redefining or apply legal definition to the 2nd Amendment which indicates that we all need to own firearms because we are all members of a militia to protect our state. If that gets redefined, we will lose all our rights to bear arms.
From my cold dead hands.....
These politicians don't realize the kind of fire they are playing with here. Tennessee alone has enough rednecks with shotguns and 4WD's to rise up against this, should these folks actually try to redefine the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps they don't remember what we Tennesseans did when our Legislature tried to circumvent our State Constitution by trying to impose an unconstitutional state income tax on us a few years ago. That was nothing compared to what will happen if they try to take away gun ownership rights. Take that one to the bank.
I sincerely hope this is just another puffed up Worldnutdaily article....
GWB came to D.C riding on a supposedly white horse, a Trojan RINO horse to do on the backside what the Dumocraps couldn’t do in a frontal assault.
It is amazing that Bushwhacker has followed the Third-Way plan set out by the Clintonista’s virtually to the letter.
I remember one author said the difference between Al Gore & GWB is that with Al we will go running off the cliff and with GWB we will go walking of the cliff, either way we will go off the cliff.
>>>These politicians don’t realize the kind of fire they are playing with here.
I think they do know.
>>>I sincerely hope this is just another puffed up Worldnutdaily article....
I don’t think so. I saw the same in a GOA mail send.
Usted tienen gusto de Jorge? If you do, good news; There are six just like him or worse coming to a general election near you. :)
Joining the GOA is a waste of money since they don’t actually accomplish anything. The Second Amemdment Foundation has a better track record and is involved with helping the Katrina victims.
I asked a GOA member if the GOA could rent a billboard in Washington D.C. in support of the Second Amendment where the members of the Supreme Court could see it every day. The answer came back as “Why would the GOA do that?” That’s a typical response. They are so used to doing nothing.
Señor Jorge Bush - I ain't gonna comply with no stinkin' gun laws!
No problemo Amigo! Hey, why start complying with laws now? Can I get you anything?
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Actually, I have three 'first names'. People get my name backwards about 40% of the time when they are first introduced.
Legal briefs are what you put on to cover the embarassing parts.
These fascists will use any lame, unsubstantiated excuse to be able to control people. And they want us to believe they are doing it for our own good (safety). "We can't let the children play with matches, now can we?"
I didn't know he was a lawyer.
“NORTH PORT, Fla. — Charlotte County authorities on Friday were looking for a 21-year-old woman they believe was abducted from her home.
Denise Amber Lee is thought to have been taken on Thursday from North Port, where her husband found their two young children alone in the home.
Click here for coverage from MyFoxTampaBay.com.
Later Thursday, authorities arrested Michael Lee King, 37, who they believe snatched Lee, the daughter of a Charlotte County sheriff’s lieutenant. But there has been no sign of her.
Authorities said King was evoking his right to remain silent and was not cooperating with police.
Authorities said they had no indication whether Lee knew King and had not talked about a motive.
The search was expected to conclude at sundown and start again Saturday morning.”
If the US Government wants to start a real civil war, all they (US Supreme Court) will have to do is rule the second amendment does not stand for the individual right to keep and bear arms, instead a state collective right, and watch this Country melt before their eyes!
Sounds exactly like what they are doing, drawing a line between citizen and state militia member
we will lose all our rights to bear arms.
Probably not "all" rights, just the ones we need to protect us from the government
An oxymoron of sorts. It’s generally a 15 to 40 page memo to the trial court or appellate court containing arguments and case law supporting a party’s legal position. A legal brief is almost never brief and sometimes it’s not even legal, e.g., if the facts don’t support your position, pound the law; if the law doesn’t support your position, pound the facts; if neither the facts nor law support your position, pound the table, etc.
How about 'watch their offices,paychecks, and pensions melt befor their very eyes'. I'd prefer to mantain this great nation and not see it melt. The enemies of it, however, can go to Hell!
***Worse, when the standard for evaluating gun bans becomes “reasonable,” there is nothing else needed in order for a court somewhere to decide that all guns should be forbidden.***
Ah, memories of 1961 when Thomas J. Dodd and Emanual Cellar proposed national registration scheme with these words...”WE don’t want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register HANDGUNS. Long guns will not be affected.”
They lied to us in 1961.
They lied to us in 1964.
They lied to us in 1968. (”Today we make America safe by taking guns out of the hands of criminals”...Lyndon B. Johnson signing the 1968 Gun control act into law)
They lied to us in 1972.
They lied to us in 1978.
They lied to us in 1989.
They lied to us in 1992.
And they are lying to us now.
Good point
bump
Sounds like hot air. Can we ban the practice under global warming?
If this comes to fruition, it ain't gonna sit lightly with the locals around here......Just sayin'.....
Too many have been sitting lightly with too much.
I’m packing my guns up now, ready to FedEx them to the proper authorities. I’m sure criminal are doing the same.
We’ll all feel so much better knowing those ‘ol nasty weapons are gone for good.
I now know what I’ll be spending my $800 gummint rebate on..
No, no, no my FRiend. You've got it all wrong. Chimpy Bushitler is an Ultra-Right Wing Arch-Conservative bent on enslaving us all to Halliburton. You need to get over to DU more often.
The fact that they all believe Bush is any kind of Conservative at all tells you just how psychotic they really are.
A legal brief is similar to a boxer short, but usually with more holes in it, and it’s already full of **** when you put it on.
Yup. The brief might have Clement’s name on it, but it HAD to have Bush’s approval. The case is too important to have escaped Bush’s approval.
Between the open borders, the amnesty proposals, and this, I would NOT complain if the Dims decided to impeach him.
I have come to believe that is exactly the outcome the politicians are hoping for. They seem to be trying very hard to create anger among the legal citizens of this once great Nation. A small incident of civil disobedience will bring down the full power of the police state upon our people.
The lack of immediate, concerted action by ‘R’ leadership to quash this move and all others like it, is, in fact, the sum of the current state of affairs. Our ‘conservative’ representatives only look for the right political moment to betray us with a kiss.
Despite some minor exceptions, for all intents and purposes handguns are banned. I understand. But other than handguns, every other weapon that any citizen in the U.S. can own is allowed in D.C. (provided it has a trigger lock).
Now, how is that a "categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms"? When people pull this "chicken little" crap, knowing that it's false, they lose all credibility with me.
Fixed it
In this instance, amicus curiae.
This administration can’t come to an end soon enough.
Agreed. An administration that is open borders, No social program left behind where gun grabbing is A-OK. Problem is, I dread the future. Bill will light the constitution up and smoke it with his harem will Hillary taxes us into a depression while expanding on all of W's worst policies.
Actually, it "is" unquestionable. The right to possess firearms is lost by convicted criminals, during their period of incarceration, and always has been. Likewise the insane.
So the RKBA has always had "some" restrictions. The problem boils down to the liberal premise that the RKBA should be restricted to "the police and military" (which the Second Amendment directly says is an "unreasonable" level of restriction.
And obviously "whatever the Fedgov decides to pass" is likewise unacceptable.
I'm as opposed to any firearms BANS as anyone else, but let's not go off a rhetorical cliff, here.
If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
—Joseph Stalin
Unfortunately, kicking the public officials out of office and taking their pensions does not appear to work, they end up placing another one of their cronies in Office. Same o same and nothing changes.
Look who we have running for office of the President RomHuckaMcCain. Place them all in a bag and shake it up and you could not tell which one came out first!
I think starting with the lawyers and working up form there.
How? "Clearly" is a ridiculous qualifier. There is nothing "clear" about it. In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. So, since the major premise of this argument is faulty, the conclusion is faulty.
the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.
What part about "shall not be infringed" allows any infringement? The LANGUAGE is clear and precise. The right to keep and bear arms is absolute. It does NOT permit of any restrictions.
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.