Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case (Presidential amicus brief on DC Gun Ban)
Washington Post ^ | 01/20/08 | By Robert Barnes

Posted on 01/20/2008 5:31:20 PM PST by Copernicus

If the justices accept that advice when they hear the case in the spring, it could mean additional years of litigation over the controversial Second Amendment and could undo a ruling that was a seminal victory for gun rights enthusiasts.

Some were livid. One conservative Web site said the administration had "blundered in catastrophic fashion," and another turned Clement, usually a pinup for conservative legal scholars, into a digital dartboard. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the Republicans' chief deputy whip, called the brief "just outrageous," and Republican presidential candidate and former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) accused the Justice Department of "overlawyering" the issue.

David B. Kopel, an associate policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that President Bush was elected in part because of the passion of gun rights activists and that "the citizen activists would never have spent all those hours volunteering for a candidate whose position on the constitutionality of a handgun ban was 'maybe.' "

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; amicusbrief; banglist; ccw; doj; ericcantor; heller; nra; parker; rkba; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last
Okay, no longer buried in Bloggers and Personal, here is an "official" Muddlestream Media account of the Department of Justice Amicus Brief on the DC Gun Ban.

Best regards to all,

1 posted on 01/20/2008 5:31:24 PM PST by Copernicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Update on DC Amicus Brief.

Best regards,

2 posted on 01/20/2008 5:32:31 PM PST by Copernicus (Mary Carpenter Speaks About Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
To all those who say Romney has the same views as George Bush, what I’ve been saying all along still holds true...Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment and would be a disaster on Second Amendment issues.
3 posted on 01/20/2008 5:38:24 PM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

Thank you for posting .

Bump...


4 posted on 01/20/2008 5:38:50 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (No RINO's -VOTE FRED ... Thank you :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case

I can assure you, this has more than rankled me.

I am a longtime Bush supporter. You can check my posts going back to 2,000 and not find any Bush bashing on my part. It has pained me that he let me down on immigration and I said so, but I sucked it up and held my water.

Shooting me in the back over my 2A rights, whowever, might be too much. If we lose this SCOTUS decision with GWB's help, I'll be more than bitter and certainly not forgiving. BTW, I'm being mild here and not posting my true anger over this.

5 posted on 01/20/2008 5:39:25 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik

We are on the same page ... Here’s some info for anyone else who doesn’t know about Flip’s anti-gun stances ....

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm


6 posted on 01/20/2008 5:40:37 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (No RINO's -VOTE FRED ... Thank you :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I share your pain and admire your reserved expression which I find necessary to do also.


7 posted on 01/20/2008 5:45:06 PM PST by mcshot (Missing my grade school desk which protected from nuclear blasts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: umgud
I feel your pain and anger. I also voted for Bush both times and this is what we get in return. I find his amicus brief to be a despicable act of treachery against those who have stood by him all these years.
8 posted on 01/20/2008 5:45:51 PM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: umgud

“Shooting me in the back over my 2A rights, whowever, might be too much. If we lose this SCOTUS decision with GWB’s help, I’ll be more than bitter and certainly not forgiving. BTW, I’m being mild here and not posting my true anger over this.”

Perhaps they fear that the court will actually rule for the 2A as the Founding Fathers intended. Or more likely they are making a bunch of back door deals to get the ruling they want.

More likely all these Big government folks fear free citizens would hamper their agenda for a global socialist utopia.


9 posted on 01/20/2008 5:48:02 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

Hell, if I’d have known that “W” had all these major problems, I would have just gone fishing, instead of hauling my old butt out of bed, to vote for him!
“W” has got to be the biggest let down in my life!


10 posted on 01/20/2008 5:50:00 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

Here’s a better headline:

Bush is a Traitor.


11 posted on 01/20/2008 5:54:36 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
It has pained me that he let me down

Welcome home.

12 posted on 01/20/2008 5:56:15 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I remember in 2000 an NRA state director saying that in a video that if gwB was elected “We would have one of our guys in the White House”

And of course the Msm went bonkers over that video

“Why he is the back pocket of the NRA”

I would have prefered if he had been in the back pocket of the NRA, and I also think if one of the Dhimmirats wins in November, GWB’s two terms will be known as the “Happy Time”.


13 posted on 01/20/2008 6:00:14 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
One has to be beyond moronic to submit such briefs before the Roberts court, an insult to the justices, and I sincerely hope the Roberts court tears apart these lawyers. I’m not holding my breath, but it would be proper for the court to assail everyone who submitted briefs that are so convoluted, contrary and twisted.
14 posted on 01/20/2008 6:05:30 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
I can assure you, this has more than rankled me.

I am a longtime Bush supporter. You can check my posts going back to 2,000 and not find any Bush bashing on my part. It has pained me that he let me down on immigration and I said so, but I sucked it up and held my water.

Shooting me in the back over my 2A rights, whowever, might be too much. If we lose this SCOTUS decision with GWB's help, I'll be more than bitter and certainly not forgiving. BTW, I'm being mild here and not posting my true anger over this.

I think most of us here on FR share your pain on this. After voting for Bush twice, I have never felt so betrayed.

15 posted on 01/20/2008 6:06:33 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (If you don't want people to get your goat, don't tell them where it's tied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

myself also. I have never felt so betrayed in my life. anybody heard a response yet from the nra on this latest issue?


16 posted on 01/20/2008 6:11:04 PM PST by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: padre35

“GWB’s two terms will be known as the “Happy Time”.
________________________________________________
How about the “WASTE OF TIME’?
I would never have worked my ass of to get him elected, if I had ever suspected just how bad he was set to screw me over!
Shame on Me, I won’t do that, again!


17 posted on 01/20/2008 6:18:37 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: umgud
umgud said: "I'm being mild here and not posting my true anger over this."

I wrote snail-mail letters to both Bush and Clement.

The justification in the brief for a lower level of scrutiny is extremely weak. It basically just ignores the Second Amendment. I hope that my request that they withdraw this brief doesn't result in them submitting a stronger one.

The only justification for suggesting that "reasonable regulation" isn't an infringement was one early court decision which permitted a ban on concealed carry. One judge's decision is hardly sufficient to outweigh the Founder's intentions to bar infringements.

I recommend that everybody communicate their dissatisfaction with this brief.

18 posted on 01/20/2008 6:20:35 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingu
 
Like I said on another thread, some sharp legal eagles need to make a big stink about this. The "Justice" Department's position on this is untenable and out of line, and should be quashed. I do believe there is some rule of ethics/procedure that a counsel (in this case, the justice dept.) cannot take a position adversarial to that of the client they are representing (that being us, the people).
 

19 posted on 01/20/2008 6:26:36 PM PST by LastDayz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223
Briefs Filed in D.C. Gun Ban Case

Statement Of the National Rifle Association

20 posted on 01/20/2008 6:27:55 PM PST by Enterprise (Those who "betray us" also "Betray U.S." They're called DEMOCRATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kingu
kingu said: "I’m not holding my breath, but it would be proper for the court to assail everyone who submitted briefs that are so convoluted, contrary and twisted."

A good question for a Supreme Court Justice to ask the plaintiff, DC, would be, "Given that the US has stated that the common law right to keep and bear arms permits "reasonable regulation" of the right, what additional constraints on government, if any, were created by the ratification of the Second Amendment?"

Let's hear them explain that one-tenth of our Bill of Rights has no beneficial effect whatever toward protecting our rights. It's quite disheartening to think that there are Supreme Court Justices who would agree.

21 posted on 01/20/2008 6:35:13 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

thanks Enterprise.


22 posted on 01/20/2008 6:39:20 PM PST by bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

“More likely all these Big government folks fear free citizens would hamper their agenda for a global socialist utopia.”

Right you are.
It has worked for many other governments; history should not be forgotten!


23 posted on 01/20/2008 6:42:26 PM PST by elpinta (Tagline temporarily out of service)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus; AlaskaErik; Neu Pragmatist; umgud; mcshot; driftdiver; SWAMPSNIPER; ...
Wow. What great friends you must make. Some guy at the Washington Post writes a story and quotes some half-cocked congressman and a failed candidate trolling for votes and you guys believe it without even so much as a second guess and suddenly think that President Bush is a gun grabbing Hitler socialist traitor. Do you really think Cantor or Thompson read the brief and would go on the record opposing wht the brief's chief concern is - that the test the appeals court applied opens the door to criminals having access to machine guns?

Why would any candidate pursue support or cater to the interests of a constituency so easily duped?

I read the Washington Post article. I read it a second time. It wasn't clear to me what the soliciter was saying, and I didn't trust the WashPost staff writer, so I went and dug up the actual brief in question.

Reading it carefully, it makes some sense and isn't any kind of backstabbing. It supports, clearly, the over-ruling of the gun ban in DC.

The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov't has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.

Now I understand that some of you think these kinds of laws are unconstitutional, and they may well be, but they are the status quo and have been for the last century and defending them on the books is hardly the kind of thing you need to flip out on the president over.

So cool your jets. And read the brief if you want right here.

24 posted on 01/20/2008 6:46:44 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“The only justification for suggesting that “reasonable regulation” isn’t an infringement was one early court decision which permitted a ban on concealed carry. One judge’s decision is hardly sufficient to outweigh the Founder’s intentions to bar infringements”

Our Supreme Court Justices have looked to foreign laws in order to interpret our Constitution. I have no faith in them including Roberts.


25 posted on 01/20/2008 6:48:03 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LastDayz

It isn’t untenable. Maybe you should read it. See post 24.


26 posted on 01/20/2008 6:48:39 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Actually, that question would best be asked of the defendant. The plaintiff brought the case.


27 posted on 01/20/2008 6:50:00 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bobby.223; Inyo-Mono

See post 24.


28 posted on 01/20/2008 6:50:43 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

One day, before his term is over....GWB will give a press conference....and surprise....rips off his mask and says “I did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky”....


29 posted on 01/20/2008 6:51:12 PM PST by UCFRoadWarrior (Support the ABM Treaty...Anyone But McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

So do you think we would still have the AWB today if Al Gored was elected or not Swampsniper?

GWb is at least neutral the Libs are hostile to the 2nd amendment and will indeed do more then offer Amicus briefs, they will ban stuff.


30 posted on 01/20/2008 6:54:05 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

“The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov’t has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.”

I did read it. They make the argument that the DC gun ban is just an extension of this.

Down the slippery slope we go!

The musket was the assault weapon of the Revolutionary times.


31 posted on 01/20/2008 6:56:19 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

“The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov’t has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.”

@nd amendment advocates and Constitutionalists stand on the brink of seeing 20,000 firearms laws repealed throughout the country, this brief supports each and everyone of the 20,000 laws through the warm pablum of “Reasonableness” and that is a bit of tough pill to swallow for those who supported GWB due to the outrageous “Assault Weapons Ban” and the “Brady Law”.


32 posted on 01/20/2008 7:00:47 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Although I voted for G. W. Bush twice, I have recently decided that was a mistake.

The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.

I am done.

33 posted on 01/20/2008 7:06:00 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
To all those who say Romney has the same views as George Bush, what I’ve been saying all along still holds true...Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment and would be a disaster on Second Amendment issues.

BTTT

34 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:13 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.

What are you talking about? I have one and renew it annually.

35 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:48 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem; padre35
Are you two taking the position that no restrictions should apply to the 2nd Amendment, even in cases of due process?

The solicitor made the point that some restrictions are reasonable and that the standard the SCOTUS applies needs to be more precise than the one applied by the appeals court.

Now, I'm not going to say you are necessarily wrong about the first one, but I am saying you are wrong to interpret the solicitor's opinion as de facto favoring Brady, the AWB, and that you are wrong to beat up on W so brutally for this.

There are some real restrictions on the first amendment. Real ones that existed from the begining of time that are not mentioned in the amendment - like slander, liable, fighting words, immiment danger, etc. Are there no restrictions on the most literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

36 posted on 01/20/2008 7:10:56 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.”

Huh? why couldnt you do that?


37 posted on 01/20/2008 7:11:03 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) accused the Justice Department of "overlawyering" the issue.

And Fred is the ONLY one of the candidates to comment on this amicus by the DOJ!!!!!

38 posted on 01/20/2008 7:11:25 PM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
What are you talking about? I have one and renew it annually.

Sooner or later, they will get around to asking you for proof of physical address in three (3) forms and a picture ID issued by some government agency.

I don't have any of that.

39 posted on 01/20/2008 7:14:24 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

See #39.


40 posted on 01/20/2008 7:15:30 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

“The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov’t has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. “

Or banning automatic weapons, or ugly weapons, or waiting periods, or requiring trigger locks, or making veterans with PTSD ineligible to own a weapon, the list goes on and on.

Your optimism is charming but I don’t buy it. We’ve been thrown under the bus once again by our “loyal” elected officials.


41 posted on 01/20/2008 7:15:49 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard
Now I understand that some of you think these kinds of laws are unconstitutional, and they may well be, but they are the status quo and have been for the last century and defending them on the books is hardly the kind of thing you need to flip out on the president over.

What a piece of cow dung, your post is the same as saying the 2nd amendment is what the government rulers says it is. Some of use think the government has pissed on the 2nd to long. And the hyper boil about tanks and rocket launchers is straight from the liberal left.

42 posted on 01/20/2008 7:16:47 PM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

If we were to drag the 1st Amendment into the discussion (which is off topic BTW) it should be pointed out that Slander and Liable and Defamation all are tortous, merely owning a firearm is not, it is neutral object that does nothing unless utilized.

To reach for an analogy your position would have mere written words declared illegal to write even in the privacy of ones own home, they would be mala in se, just like the fruit of the 2nd amendment is with 20,000 firearms laws.

Pass “laws” that make twenty thousand words illegal write, and then we may have a “level” playing field for the discussion.

And I did not “savage” gwB over this, not at all.


43 posted on 01/20/2008 7:17:46 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mbraynard

The Admin wants status quo . It is in effect a neutral position .

So just exactly who are you chastising and why ?


44 posted on 01/20/2008 7:21:32 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (No RINO's -VOTE FRED ... Thank you :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.

???  Tell me more - how was this?

45 posted on 01/20/2008 7:22:21 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
In three forms? Are you sure it's three?

Are you homeless? Maybe try mailboxes express?

46 posted on 01/20/2008 7:22:27 PM PST by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: padre35

“Pass “laws” that make twenty thousand words illegal write, and then we may have a “level” playing field for the discussion.”

IMO we do need some laws regarding firearms. People convicted of violent felonies shouldn’t be allowed to own one. Funny how this law hasn’t worked so far though but it seems reasonable.

Automatic weapons should be legal to produce and own but I don’t want a tank. Couldn’t afford the upkeep or parking fees.

The current trend of making more and more crimes adequate justification to revoke 2nd Amendment rights needs to stop.


47 posted on 01/20/2008 7:24:07 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
To all those who say Romney has the same views as George Bush, what I’ve been saying all along still holds true...Mitt Romney is no friend of the Second Amendment and would be a disaster on Second Amendment issues.

And, so, on this issue, Romney differs from GWB in what way?

48 posted on 01/20/2008 7:25:03 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

“And, so, on this issue, Romney differs from GWB in what way?”

Romney is much more blatant about his support for Gun Control.


49 posted on 01/20/2008 7:27:16 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I’m thoroughly pissed. And you can quote me.


50 posted on 01/20/2008 7:27:28 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson