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 ...
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.
thanks Enterprise.
“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!
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.
“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.
It isn’t untenable. Maybe you should read it. See post 24.
Actually, that question would best be asked of the defendant. The plaintiff brought the case.
See post 24.
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”....
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.
“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.
“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”.
The last straw was when I could not renew or replace my PO box because of his Patriot Act.
I am done.
BTTT
What are you talking about? I have one and renew it annually.
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?
“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?
And Fred is the ONLY one of the candidates to comment on this amicus by the DOJ!!!!!
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.
See #39.
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.