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 ...
“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.
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.
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.
The Admin wants status quo . It is in effect a neutral position .
So just exactly who are you chastising and why ?
??? Tell me more - how was this?
Are you homeless? Maybe try mailboxes express?
“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.
And, so, on this issue, Romney differs from GWB in what way?
“And, so, on this issue, Romney differs from GWB in what way?”
Romney is much more blatant about his support for Gun Control.
I’m thoroughly pissed. And you can quote me.
Ok - so zero restrictions on who may own and what they may own? That's a yes for you, right?
your post is the same as saying the 2nd amendment is what the government rulers says it is
That's true of all laws, isn't it? In this case, you want it to mean what you think, and the solicitor wants it to mean what he thinks. If the document could speak for itself we wouldn't need a court system.
Pass “laws” that make twenty thousand words illegal write, and then we may have a “level” playing field for the discussion.
There are. I give you five and will write them right now. "Padre35 is a child molestor."
My point is that the 1st amendment is not literally absolute and I am saying that the solicitor's point is the 2nd isn't.
I own a bricks and sticks home that even UPS can’t find, and spend a lot of time in a RV.
I believed in Bush in the beginning, campaigned for him among my friends, sent him more money than I’ve ever sent any politician and God am I sorry now. With me Second Amendment is the biggy, but the border is a close second.
A pox on the "capitulate at any cost" a-holes...
Yes , Flip Romney is not to be trusted on this issue . He has made no effort to right his wrongs ....
Klinton Redux ? You decide ....
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Mine still says "shall not be infringed".
A couple of years ago and you would have been banned for writing that. My how times have changed.
“Ok - so zero restrictions on who may own and what they may own? That’s a yes for you, right?”
Did I say that? 20,000 laws regarding anything is beyond stupid. 20,000 laws regarding a Constitutional Right is a travesty.
Is it reasonable for law abiding citizens to have their 2nd Amend rights revoked?
Is it reasonable for them to have to register their desire to exercise their right?
But according to you I am equivalent to a child molester for thinking current gun laws are abusive and un-Constitutional.
“My point is that the 1st amendment is not literally absolute and I am saying that the solicitor’s point is the 2nd isn’t.”
Thats not what he said. He said the current 20,000 laws were reasonable restrictions on a Constitutional right.
“A couple of years ago and you would have been banned for writing that. My how times have changed.”
Just what I thought when posting it.
“padre35 is a child molestor”
Under your theory, those words would be enough cause to have you arrested even if you wrote them in your own home and then stuck them into a file never to be read again.
Or even worse, you would need a license and pass a course to write them.
And BTW mbraynard, thanks for giving the other side of the discussion.
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.