·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
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.
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
LOL !
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.
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.Thanks neverdem.
Depending on the level of violence, they should lose their life the first instance of violence.
Those that demonstrate their mental & emotional untrustworthiness should also lose their gun rights.
Thanks for the ping!
If there is a reasonable third-party candidate, someone conservative, I’ll vote for him. Otherwise Obama’s got it, assuming he makes it to the election. No McCain, no Clinton. Can’t do write-ins here in Oklahoma, so that isn’t an option. Party better come through if they want my vote, as I’m conservative first, Republican a very distant second.
In reply to post 15...
Cheney represents the Government as the Founding Fathers intended Government to be. I would have hoped that their brief would have asked for a harsh ruling on all gun bans, not just DC’s. Yet, the other side of the issue, Bush and his lackeys are desperate to keep the MG ban in place. This tells me that they view every American citizen as a criminal and are punishing us as such. This is why I don’t donate money to candidates. I won’t support my own fall into oppression. That money is better spent on ammo, education, and the ability to overcome anything put before me.
I pray the USSC strikes with the wrath of God and smites ALL gun bans so that we may truly live free.
Mike
He did. But as "President of the Senate", his official/Constitutional title when wearing that "hat". KKK Byrd, who did not sign, is only "President Pro Tempore", meaning President when the Veep isn't there". Grungy Harry is Majority Leader, which is not a Constitutional office, as Minority Leader, majority whip and minority whip are similarly not Constitutionally mandated offices.
And those will be the Good Parts.
Actually the Court did that when it formulated the question. Well, not quite that, the Question is:
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
Notice the "and other firearms" language. However none of those sections of DC law address Ugly Black Guns.
7-2502.02(a)(4) forbids registration of pistols not registered (to the same person!) prior to Sept. 24, 1976.
22-4504(a) concerns carrying a pistol on or about the person without a permit (and to get one the pistol must be registered!)
7-2507.02 requires registered firearms to be kept unloaded, and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device (except at a place of business or when being used for lawful recreational purposes.
The arguments need to be limited to and focused on The Question, not other related topics. Those will come in later cases, if and when the Court declares once and for all that the Second Amendment protects the "rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia" That is why this case is so important, and why so many folks of both the "collective right" (aka gun grabbers) crowd and various stripes of "individual right" adherents have weighed in.
This is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning.
Unless it goes badly, and then it will be the beginning of the end, at the least. The Gun Grabbers will run rampant, and President Clinton or Obama will lead the charge, or President McCain will still sign their legislation, in order to be liked by them and the main stream media).
Those are not at issue in this case. The Supreme Court restricts itself to cases and controversies, not general constitutional principals. However I'm sure you've seen what happens when the little Dutch Boy pulls his finger out of the dike, or when you pull on a single thread in a sweater. That can happen here, but not all in one case.
Mores the pity.
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.