Posted on 02/04/2008 11:35:06 AM PST by ctdonath2
Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcguncase.com ...
This ought to be very interesting reading.
Do we have the solicitor general’s (or the the Justice Department’s) brief that was in support of the W., D.C. position?
Restore The Constitution!!! The 2nd Amendment has absolutely ZILCH to do with hunting or ‘sport shooting’!
Who the hell was hunting or sport shooting in 1776 and wanted it in the Constitition? (Why didn’t they include all their other hobbies or activities like farming then?)
I believe this is the SG’s brief: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf
Read it. Amounts to “DC is completely wrong, but if you rule in favor of Mr. Heller then we’ll subsequently lose other prohibitions we like, so please just bury this case.”
Yep, it’s been 70 years since the Supreme Court has directly ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I have a feeling this will be an historic ruling, and the liberals will be driven nuts by a court ruling that recognizes the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
Isn’t the guy arguing for the ban one of those evil Clinton cronies?
a link is posted here somewhere’s search.
It must argue that W., D.C. has no standing due to Congressional governance of the district, but some gun bans are reasoned.
Possible good point on one, absolutely terrible point on the other.
Just thing how many trees you could have saved for jorge with that brief. :^)
I appologize. Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.
Interesting. I just skimmed it, but they’ve got a LOT of good historical info in there. Some I knew already, some I didn’t. Good read...
Thank you. CTDonath2 posted it under response six.
bump for later reading. Thanks for posting this.
The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also reauthorized the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, containing this language: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50, 52. But nobody would seriously contend that were religion, morality, or knowledge one day found unnecessary for good government, schools should no longer be encouraged in the states of the former Northwest Territory.
"Although this case does not call upon the Court to determine the standard of review applicable to regulations of Second Amendment rights, Respondent observes that the right to arms protects two of the most fundamental rights—the defense of one’s life inside one’s home, and the defense of society against tyrannical usurpation of authority. Petitioners’ casual use of social science sharply underscores the importance of securing Second Amendment rights with a meaningful standard of review."
They didn’t allow us to vote in Jorge the Mexican to save the Constitution, far from it. They offered us Kerry the Frenchman or Jorge the Mexican for a reason of their own.
And it ain’t good for us.
Hey, Bobby, paying any attention?
1st I've noticed is regarding the weight that should be given the preamble.
As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only “[i]f words happen to still be dubious.” Pet. Br. 17 (quotation and citation omitted). “[B]ut when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 516 (9th ed. 1858). “The preamble can neither limit nor extend the meaning of a statute which is clear. Similarly, it cannot be used to create doubt or uncertainty.” Norman Singer, 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47.04, at 295 (7th ed. 2007).
That's an an argument we've seen made before. But the brief doesn't stop there:
The Framers were familiar with these rules of construction. One influential English precedent held:I can by no means allow of the notion that the preamble shall restrain the operation of the enacting clause; and that, because the preamble is too narrow or defective, therefore the enacting clause, which has general words, shall be restrained from its full latitude, and from doing that good which the words would otherwise, and of themselves, import; which (with some heat) his Lordship said was a ridiculous notion.Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 320 (Ch. 1716);
And he brief continues to cite other precedents, in English law, prior to 1789, that support the argument that according to the rules of statutory construction as understood at the time the founders were writing preambles could not be read so as to restrict the power of the enacting clause.
Like I said - solid research.
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.