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 ...
“Ok - so zero restrictions on who may own and what they may own? That’s a yes for you, right?”
How long before we need a permit for free speech, too?
Oh right - there was McCain/Kennedy/Thompson Campaign Finance Reform.
One right at a time... down the toilet.
Rah Rah USSA!
mbraynard said: :That's true of all laws, isn't it? "
God help you if you don't know the difference between a right as defined in the Constution and a law. I don't derive my rights from the government. My right to life and self-defense predate the Constitution.
For those of us who live and work in D.C. it has a really bothersome “let them eat cake” quality. We note that the Pres would undoubtedly be upset if Crawford, Texas, adopted a gun ban. I have been three times assaulted in the District in situations where a sidearm would have been very useful.
OK, but I guess I've missed something - how does the Patriot Act stop you from having a PO box?
You've taken a great leap of assumption her. I too have read the brief and have come to a different conclusion than you. I suspect the most the others here have too.
You've lost your mind. Discussion over.
The 2nd amendment is all about posession.
I am saying the solicitor (not me) is saying that there are limits to both that are reasonable and constitutional.
Sure, I agree with you there. But this isn't about your rights, this is about a law (the Constitution) and what it applies to and how it is interpreted. IE - we have a government that rules by written laws and not what one person happens to think at any given moment.
The court of appeals adopted a two-part test, under which a particular weapon is a Second Amendment "Arm[]" if it (i) bears a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and (ii) is "of the kind in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted.
I don't even get the 2nd part of a test because the only weapons around back then were laughably inefficient, though I guess they did have 'handguns' and 'longguns.'
From the brief:
History also supports that conclusion. Because Founding-era militia members were expected to procure their own firearms and to bring those guns when called to service, see p. 16, supra, the militia could not have been "well regulated" if individuals had unrestricted freedom to choose which "Arms" they would possess. Rather, it was essential to the effective operation of the militia as then constituted that government officials be authorized to specify the weapons that individual mem bers would be required to procure and maintain. The Amendment's text and history thus suggest that the substantive right secured did not guarantee an unfet tered choice of "Arms."
As those who have really studied American history in the 18th Century know, "well regulated" simply meant "well oiled; presice in form and function;" like a "Regulated clock," common at that time, not regulations (restrictions) of choice of firearms. That would have been unheard of at the time the 2nd was written: "No Daniel, you can't carry that .75 cal. musket, that theres illegal. You can only have an .58 cal or smaller rifle."
In the days of muzzle loading firearms, an armed miltia had to regulate how they would load and fire their weapons without shooting each other. The back row would be loading while the front row would fire. That is the true meaning of "regulated" in the 2nd. NOT restriction of choice of weapons.
Sorry, I read your post and get the impression of someone too cranky to co-operate with the incompetent desk clerk at the local post office. I really don't see the problem with demonstrating who you are in able to get a post office box.
So is any restriction on choice of arms unconstitutional? How do you reconcile this right with the increasingly potent choice of arms that are available today versus during the revolution?
I'm not trying to be advasarial with you, just thoughtful. My biggest concern is that the Constitution becomes either a death pact or wholly discarded if either a lot of wisdom doesn't come out of the decisions here.
THAT, my FRiend, is the far more likely scenario.
I fear...yes. That is the likeliest of scenarios.
If my hometown were attacked tomorrow, the local miltia, all armed members of the community, would grab their arms and repell the enemy, without some "government official" telling them what type of weapon they could use.
I am sick of tilting at windmills. Is there anything we the base can do to force Bush to do our budding? Can we block his “legacy” issues in the Congress, such as denying a penny of aid to the Palestinian nazis? How about Republican Senators blocking his every appointment until he backs down on this?
So is any restriction on choice of arms unconstitutional? How do you reconcile this right with the increasingly potent choice of arms that are available today versus during the revolution?
I'm not trying to be advasarial with you, just thoughtful. My biggest concern is that the Constitution becomes either a death pact or wholly discarded if either a lot of wisdom doesn't come out of the decisions here.
The 2nd never has been a "death pact." If some gang banger pulls out a fully automatic weapon and fires on a neighborhood, shouldn't those residents have the right to return fire with similar weapons? And if we all were armed, with no restrictions, don't you beleive that the bad guys would have second thoughts about shooting first?
In the early 1900s, before state and Federal gun laws, when anyone could carry arms without restrictions, the crime rate was really low, something like 200 murders per year in the entire U.S.
“Forget writing”?
Hmm methinks you may have found yourself on the losing end of the discussion and now wish to redefine the discussion.
Okay we can do that.
The problem with reducing even the availability of spoken words resides in the assumption that spoken words carry the promise of “action”:
For example:
I am going to drive over to your home and kick your dog.
An action is implied.
The mere posession of a arm does not also carry with it the use of the arm in an illegal manner, for example:
I bought a .50 cal Barret rifle this weekend. (No I did not..just sayin’)
What possible action could be derived from such a purchase?
Is there some promise of violence in merely posession?
And that is where the “reasonableness” argument falls down due to be reduced to simple possesion eqauting to actual usage in an illegal manner.
If we say “you can not say X Y and Z” the reasonableness argument would be forced to stipulate that the thought of such words being used is powerful enough to Ban them before they are even used, IE it would be a crime to even think of those words because they “might” be used.
No, not "reasonable restrictions. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows "reasonable" restrictions. This brief calls for "height ed scrutiny" of gun control laws. But the very least that the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights is "strict scrutiny". The difference is that in the former, the government would only need to show some legitimate "governmental purpose" for the restriction. They would not have to show that the restriction was effective in addressing that government purpose. Nor would they have to show that the restriction was the minimum possible to address the "governmental purpose".
Very few gun control laws could pass the "strict scrutiny" test. Most could and cording the governments brief, all current federal ones would.
A pox on both the "No individual right" and "resonable restrictions" bastids.
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.