Update on DC gun ban. Supreme Court Brief...

Update on DC gun ban. Supreme Court Brief...

This is a discussion on Update on DC gun ban. Supreme Court Brief... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The brief to the supreme court is sad, to say the least. In reality, it's scary. Their recomendation is that the 2nd admendment does deserve ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Update on DC gun ban. Supreme Court Brief...

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894

    Exclamation Update on DC gun ban. Supreme Court Brief...

    The brief to the supreme court is sad, to say the least. In reality, it's scary. Their recomendation is that the 2nd admendment does deserve protection, but only an 'intermediate' protection...What does that mean? Just another step to the new, better, gun-free America.

    NRA-ILA :: Legislation

    U.S. Department of Justice Brief

    Gun owners are understandably dismayed about the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Although the DOJ brief was filed on the same day as “friend of the court” briefs supporting the District of Columbia (DC), it does not support DC’s position but rather its own unique point of view—a view with which the NRA still disagrees.

    The District is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals and find that the Second Amendment does not protect a broad individual right. DOJ is supporting a different view—that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and that the case should go back to the lower court to apply a different standard of review. DOJ suggests applying a lower level of constitutional scrutiny than the Court of Appeals adopted. The NRA disagrees and believes the lower court’s ruling should be upheld.

    NRA believes that the right to arms is a fundamental right; as with other fundamental rights, laws restricting that right deserve the highest level of scrutiny. The NRA and those seeking to overturn the gun ban believe that the scope of the Second Amendment is clear. Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion, this case is not about felons or machine guns. This case is about law-abiding people who want handguns and long guns for self-defense. The total ban on self-defense gun ownership in D.C. is so severe that it should be found unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, and we will make that point in our “friend of the court” brief when it is filed next month.

    Finally, while NRA strongly disagrees with many of the arguments in DOJ’s brief, there are a few areas of agreement. Notably, DOJ agrees that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that it applies to the District, even strongly hinting that under the lower “heightened scrutiny” it supports that D.C laws could be unconstitutional. This was not the position of the previous administration. In fact, Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno and Solicitor General Seth Waxman, along with other DOJ officials from the Clinton administration have filed their own brief in support of the District, arguing that there is no individual right at all to possess guns outside of government service.

    DOJ also recognizes that the Second Amendment protects a right to self-defense, and that the right to arms was a pre-existing right protected, but not created, by the Constitution.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?


  2. #2
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,981
    It'll be interesting to see if the S.C. goes with the plain english version of the Second Amendment of some sissified United Nations perversion of it.

    I've got an idea of which one they will go with.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I saw a signature on here one time...it went something like this.
    There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion.
    Another one was... When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    Before reading up on this, I didn't realize how far DC had went. I knew it was 'gun-free', but I didn't know that it applied to people's homes. I guess I just can't comprehend an actual 'gun-free' city. And, they don't just fine people for having a weapon in their own house, they put them in jail. That's just scary.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,981
    That's just scary.
    Not to mention WRONG.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    That NRA article looks a little sketchy to me. the summary it gives is too short to do the questions justice.

    The DOJ Brief is already being discussed here:
    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...easonable.html

    You can read the DOJ Brief for yourself: edit link fixed:

    http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa...itedStates.pdf

    and read all these too:
    Pleadings :: Parker v. District of Columbia, et al.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    This is the article I had originally read when I decided to post.
    News-Talk 660 KSKY Radio
    Et tu, Brute? In the waning days of the Bush Administration, Justice Department lawyers have filed a curious amicus brief in the DC gun ban case before the US Supreme Court. The attorneys took a middle-of-the-road approach to Second Amendment freedoms. They argued that gun ownership is not a “fundamental” right. Instead, they say, it is a right deserving only an “intermediate” level of protection.

    The brief is a disappointing about face for a Justice Department once lauded for its ardent defense of Second Amendment rights.

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey owes gun owners an explanation for this late betrayal.

    In a recent Townhall.com column, former National Rifle Association president Sandy Froman protested the Justice Department’s misguided action. She correctly explains the government’s position includes only halfhearted support for the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court were to adopt the Department’s position, it would imperil our civil right to keep and bear arms.

    It appears that the Justice Department is trying to say this is a right that should be protected, but the level of protection should be low enough to allow government to broadly restrict or maybe even eliminate your ability to exercise that right. They try to split the baby of having a right but letting government do almost whatever it wants to that right.

    The problem with splitting a baby in half is that the baby usually dies. If our rights can be regulated to the point that we can’t exercise them in our own homes, then they’ve been regulated out of existence.

    So much for civil rights.

    The Left refers to racial equality and voting as “civil rights.” But, civil rights are broader than that. Our civil rights are all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence tells us that government exists to protect our God-given rights, and the Constitution created our court system where those rights are vindicated.

    There are three civil rights for which any attempted regulation should be looked at with great suspicion. They are religious liberty, political free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

    Our country was founded by pilgrims seeking the religious freedom to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, free from government dictates. The highest promise of free speech is that we may openly discuss the public issues of the day free of censorship or threat, so that we can hold our elected leaders accountable and replace those whom we learn have failed to keep our trust.

    And the right to keep and bear arms was put there so that we could defend ourselves and our loved ones, provide for ourselves, and have a last resort to defend freedom.

    Laws curtailing any of those three rights should be looked at with the most skeptical and doubting eye, and we ought not to allow such laws to go further than necessary to achieve extremely important objectives. For example, as important as free speech is, it’s clear why the government must be able to stop television reporters from showing maps of troop locations and movements in overseas operations. Narrow rules are allowed where such life-and-death matters are at stake.

    But our civil rights can only be regulated in that minimal fashion, and only when absolutely essential. We never sacrifice our liberty.

    Yet in the face of all that, the city of DC has a gun ban that forbids having a handgun or any loaded rifle or shotgun anywhere in your home. If you do, you’ll do more than pay a fine. You’ll go to jail.

    This law plainly violates the Second Amendment, and ought to be struck down. A federal appeals court did just that, and now the Supreme Court has taken the case.

    My parents loved me too much to encourage me to go to law school, so I’m not a lawyer. But I have gotten solid information from some good lawyers at the American Civil Rights Union, in addition to legal perspective, from a couple of the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country.

    They are gravely concerned about the Justice Department brief in the Heller case, saying that this could be a Trojan horse in the Second Amendment. They say that for various legal reasons if the Supreme Court were to adopt the position in this brief it would be toxic for gun rights in America. This lawsuit could go either way off the brief’s argument, but future challenges to firearm restrictions—no matter how severe—would likely fail.

    This brief was a terrible mistake. Hopefully the lawyers in this case can persuade the Supreme Court to reject that argument, and give our Second Amendment civil rights the robust protection they deserve.
    It was a little more political, so I had decided to go with the NRA version. And if it's already running, sorry, I didn't see the other post.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    No worries about the other thread- seeing the NRA react to the DOJ brief is probably a worth topic in itself.

    Certain aspects of the DOJ Brief are excellent: 2A protects individual right, that right is everyone (not just militia).

    Although I don't completely agree with the rest of the DOJ Brief I think they ask some very important questions:

    I think almost everyone would agree that some firearm restrictions are constitutional: No possession by felons and minors, child safety locks, certain consumer safety laws (to protect the operator), certain gun free zones (airports and prisons), requiring guns to be made with a certain amount of metal to be detectable...

    one can argue with the specifics of these limits, but most will agree some of them are needed.

    The DOJ worries that some sort of system for our government to decide what limits are useful and constitutional is necessary. Our founders created the "check and balance" system with congress, executive, and judicial review. The DOJ asked the supreme court to make sure their decision allowed that check and balance system to function.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    from News-Talk 660 KSKY Radio
    It appears that the Justice Department is trying to say this is a right that should be protected, but the level of protection should be low enough to allow government to broadly restrict or maybe even eliminate your ability to exercise that right.
    That is really not what i gathered when i read the DOJ brief. Rather they say, gun laws are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. Essentially that the judicial branch must constantly check to see if gun laws are in line with constitutional protection.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    Now I get it! The Second Amendment is to protect "our" rights to bear arms against our government in case the need should arise, but "our" government wants to tell us if and when we can bear arms!
    This really ticks me off! In the words of Patrick Henry: "give liberty or give me death!", I think it is time for another revolution!!!
    We can not, we must not let our government take away our rights!!!
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  11. #11
    Member Array Dusty Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Escalon, CA
    Posts
    335
    Yet one more time the Bush administration lets us down. HOW could somebody who looked so good going in end up being such a butthead?

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court and 2A
    By JoJoGunn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 01:13 AM
  2. US Supreme Court Over Rules Bush and The World Court (Merged)
    By Sig 210 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 08:56 PM
  3. Supreme Court says YES!
    By Glock_19 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 03:57 PM