Skip to comments.Statement From Wayne LaPierre And Chris W. Cox On Vice President Dick Cheney Signing Congress...
Posted on 02/08/2008 5:30:32 PM PST by neverdem
On behalf of four million NRA members and 80 million American gun owners, we would like to thank Vice President Dick Cheney for his strong support of the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Today, in his capacity as President of the United States Senate, Vice President Cheney signed on to the congressional amicus curiae brief affirming the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. As Americans, we are grateful and fortunate to have a friend of freedom in the Vice President.
Led by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history - filed a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. 55 members of the Senate and 250 members of the House co-signed this brief along with the Vice President of the United States. This landmark brief argues that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual, fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms; that any infringement on this right should be subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny; that D.C.'s categorical ban on handguns and self-defense in the home is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any level of review; and therefore, that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's opinion in this case should be upheld.
We would also like to thank the other parties who are filing briefs in support of freedom, including other pro-Second Amendment individuals and organizations, as well as an overwhelming majority of state attorneys general.
The NRA stated in its brief filed yesterday that "In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service." We remain hopeful that justice, freedom and the will of our founding fathers will prevail at our nation's High Court.
IMHO, I thought it was a good compliment to the brief of Gura et al.
I will miss Cheney - big time.
I wish we could have Cheney as Prez!
I wonder if McCain will get the endorsement. He shouldn’t.
I am thankful that so many Senators and House Members signed on in support.
That would definitely beat voting for Obama, who is looking like my best choice, now, too.
Ping (Not a ping list)
Vice President Cheney knows the agenda of the next president will be to shred the U.S. Constitution, whether it's a Republican or Democrat???
“I wish we could have Cheney as Prez!”
Me too. He’s been a calming presence over the last 7 years. I’m sure he’s looking forward to fly fishing in Wyoming and bird hunting with Dave the lab.
Can McCain run as Cheney’s VICE-President?
He’s got my vote!
Those are the two pillars needed to support a Supreme Court decision which will challenge every anti-gun law in the nation.
Such support from a majority of both houses of Congress is not sufficient to make an unConstitutional law Constitutional. But it is quite sufficient to put liberal Supreme Court Justices on notice that the rights of the people are not to be infringed.
The use of the term “the People” means it is an individual right, just as the term is used in other amendments.
There is no such original meaning as a “government” militia. A militia is a collection of private citizens bringing their -personally- owned weapons to the defense of their country. Militia and National Guard are completely different things.
A local/state/federal government entity cannot confer the right to own a firearm because the US Constitution is predicated on the fact that -all- legal residents are already endowed by the US Constitution to own firearms.
It seems the government is divided against itself on the issue.
I expect that Cheney signed as presiding officer of the Senate, rather than expressing dissagreement with the abominable official administration position. Be interesting to hear him comment on this point, but he so seldomly gives interviews.
McCain appears to be standing with the good guys on this one. But, try as I might, I couldn’t find the names Clinton or Obama on the list of co-signers.
Disclaimer: This post is not intended as an endorsement of or support for Sen. McCain.
Similarly, its prominent position in our Bill of Rights argues strongly that it is a "fundamental" right; at least as fundamental as the penumbral emanation entitling people to the unquestioned right to kill their unborn children.
Liberals ought to be insisting that kindergarteners be indoctrinated into the usefulness of firearms. Middle schoolers ought to be trained in the use and maintenance of arms. And high schoolers should be let out of classes without parental consent when they feel the need to fire off a few hundred rounds at the school firing range.
For those being released from government custody a version of the Miranda warning should include: "You have a right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot afford a firearm and ammunition, a loaded firearm will be supplied to you."
I'm thankful for Dick Cheney's steady hand as VP with President Bush. The next term is going to be a carnival horror show.
KBH?!? As folks say here in the Piney Woods, "Waal, I'll be dogged!" ;-)
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This issue will be on my top three list this year and I already know where two of the remaining three candidates stand.
Thanks for the ping. Thank you Vice President Cheney.
I have read the summary of this Amicus, signed by Cheney, and it seems to support individual right plus reasonable restrictions.
I suspect that March 18 will prove DC individuals's right to own handguns, but support government's power to infringe on the 2A.
What is a "reasonable restriction?" To people like McCain, Brady, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, a "reasonable restriction" is to restrict all firearms to the police and military only. Once you open the door to government restrictions (shall not be infringed is not particularly hard to interpret) anything goes.
I searched the text for such and couldn’t find it......
Excellent, but where was our President's name on the document?
Oh right, he's the same man who said he would sign a renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban if it came to his desk, so he probably didn't have the time nor the inclination to put his name on the dotted line next to a REAL supporter of our Constitutional rights like Vice President Cheney, who I wish to God could and would be our next president.
Man ...I would go for that in a heart beat!
...nice looking banner.
Yep, he would have made a great president.
He shouldn't, but he probably will anyway. IMHO the NRA leadership is more interested these days in being popular with big name politicians than it is in protecting the rights of it's membership.
I quit the NRA last year after it endorsed and urged passage of a bill that was praised and supported by fervent antigunners like Chuck Schumer and Catherine McCarthy and was passed and signed by Bush. It requires, among other things, the mental history of a veteran to be strictly scrutinized by the FBI background check before the applicant is allowed to buy a gun. As a result a veteran who has defended America in combat at the risk of his own life can now be denied the right to buy a gun simply because at some point in time he was diagnosed as having a mental problem such as combat fatigue or it's new name of post traumatic syndrome. Thanks a bunch Mr. LaPierre.
In the aftermath of the tragic Columbine school shooting McCain spoke to several state legislatures which were debating bills that would ban gun shows, and some which would also ban the sale or trading of firearms between individuals and require all gun transfers to be made through licensed gun dealers. As a supposedly strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights one would have expected McCain to speak against those bills, but no, he actually spoke in favor of them and urged the legislators to vote for them. So much for his pro-gun reputation. He's no more dependable to do the right thing on that issue than he is on anything else, which is to say that he can't be trusted on any issue.
You got that right. No matter which one of the terrible three who are now left as possibles ends up in the Oval Office we're screwed. I would never have believed that the party of Reagan and Cheney would nominate a half-baked screwball like McCain to be Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, but there he is. But even at that he's much better than the two socialist would-be dictators on the other side of the coin.
Like you said, it's going to be a four year horror show, and maybe an eight year show if there's any end to it at all. I think a permanent Democrat horror show is entirely possible if either Sheik Obama or HillBill gets in this time.
The Districts prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable per se.
It is my opinion that all gun control laws infringe on the 2A. The text above states that the DC restrictions are unreasonable. Conversely, (implied) some restricts are reasonable.
Who decides what is reasonable? Thus far, government has done an unnaceptable job of that.
It certainly backed off any strong argument that "reasonable" restrictions are permitted, but did not argue enough, if at all, against existing definitions of "reasonable" restrictions.
I don't think this Amicus went far enough. IMO
It went too far IMO. Sorry as all I searched for was a quick search of the “reasonable restrictions” comment. Didn’t have time to actually read.
Note they have made this a handgun subject........... Good bye eeeeevil black AR-15 clones soon.
Hope yer well !
If you like Cheney logic would dictate that you’d loathe Obama
You do realize Obama is to the left of Hildabeast? I seriously doubt he would protect RKBA, he is a militant abortion promoter. He’s got serious ties to militant islam which is really bad at this time.
Do a Freep search on “Obama’s Church”
Agreed - Two different ways to skin that cat.
The scope is too narrow and allows room to restrict evil "assault weapons"
I'm not suggesting you vote for McCain, mind you. That's up to you.
They can pass all the laws they want IMO as if they cater to criminals in such a manner I will become a criminal when they try and take mine..........:o)
Catered too of course.....LOL !
Stay Safe and stay on yer local polidiots !
They are a waste of good ammo for now ......vote em back to inert status.
I read the NRA's brief once. The only reasonable restrictions which were described that I remember were the ones for convicted felons and the mentally ill. Their point in the brief is to emphasize the unreasonable nature of D.C.'s laws, i.e. it flies in the face of the right to self defense, natural law and common law.
Challenging the potential for abuse in reasonable restrictions, e.g. only violent felons should be banned from access to firearms, needs a different case or legislative remedy. The mental health restriction appears to be limited to only those adjudicated a threat to themselves or others, and it has a funded mechanism for appeal now. BTW, I'm not crazy about it.
This is the United States Supreme Court, not FReeRepublic.com where saying self defense means anything goes. Ergo, individuals have a right to atomic cannons. That's too abstract. Keeping it real means laws like D.C.'s de facto forbid practical self defense with firearms in your home, and therefore they are not reasonable per se. You need to limit it to the case at hand.
P.S. The brief from Gura et al. mentioned that machineguns are not banned, but restricted to those made prior to when the 1986 FOPA took effect at least twice, IIRC, to deal with the fear from the Solicitor General's brief.
I think you’re right on this. Only way to keep something like the America we know and love is to tie up the lefties in knots with a conservative Congress. Do unto them as they’ve been trying to do unto us.
I would never should a politician . . . when reusable rope would suffice. :-)
I am fully comfortable with individuals owning all types of evil-looking semi-autos as well as full auto weapons.
My strong opinion is that this Amicus takes the heat off the Administration, but acomplishes little else.
The SC will certainly write an opinion that secures individual right, but will strongly support the power of government to "reasonably" restrict. Of course "reasonable" means whatever they define it as.
Apart from what isolated people believe about the 2A -- in practice, and by tradition, it is already an individual right. The SC opinion will allow DC citizens the right to exercise that, but will secure the power of government to "reasonably" restrict.
The Amicus does little. The Opinion will also do little. IMO
Infringe is a pretty tough word to try to make weasel words around it. I could accept restrictions on violent felons and those adjudicated a threat to themselves or others. That's it. But the state would have to be responsible for their security when released.
Cheney should have ran this time. The VP is usually the one who is groomed to take over after the president finishes.
You can count on it, my Republican Congressman is as conservative as they come, and my two Republican Senators aren't too far behind him. They have my vote if I have to crawl in the door to cast it.
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.