Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Urgent Alert: Ask Your U.S. Senators And Representative To Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Rights In The States!

Friday, November 13, 2009


As a critical Second Amendment case goes before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief by Members of Congress. And we need your support for this important effort next week.

The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, and it will answer the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states—as the Congress clearly intended in the 1860s, when it adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect constitutional rights against abuse by state and local governments. This brief is an opportunity for today’s Congress to show just as clearly that it respects the Second Amendment’s importance to all Americans—not just residents of the District of Columbia and other federal territories.

The brief describes Congress’s debates on the Fourteenth Amendment, and points out the many occasions—from 1866 to 2005—when the Congress has spoken in favor of the Second Amendment as protecting a right of all Americans, and taken action to protect that right against actions such as gun confiscation and predatory lawsuits. It also makes the case for Congress’s interest (under its constitutional war powers) in preserving an armed citizenry as part of America’s national defense.

When Congress speaks, the Supreme Court listens. And it did in the historic Heller case last year when 55 Senators and 250 Representatives signed an amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right. Now every Senator and Congressman who supports the rights of all Americans should step forward to be heard by signing this brief in the McDonald case.

The brief must be filed within the week, so we need your immediate help! On Monday through Thursday, please call your U.S. Senators and Representative, and urge them to sign on to this critically important brief, which will be a key part of the legal battle to protect the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
You can find the name, address, phone, fax of your Senators and Reps at http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Thanks for the post! I just emailed my congressman and both of my state senators.

-Plop
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,603 Posts
I would write my congressman, but I live in NJ. Enough said.
Actually, with the recent change in NJ governors, this might just be the time to write the NJ congressmen.:yup::blink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Actually, with the recent change in NJ governors, this might just be the time to write the NJ congressmen.:yup::blink:
I've written several times (as recent as last week). I usually get "Thank you for contacting me, I do support the 2A and will take your input into consideration".

Then the vote comes and they have never supported any 2A related bills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I've written several times (as recent as last week). I usually get "Thank you for contacting me, I do support the 2A and will take your input into consideration".

Then the vote comes and they have never supported any 2A related bills.
I am writting all in NJ. Its not going to hurt our cause! You should also keep up the good work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,130 Posts
This case goes far beyond the Second Amendment. Should City of Chicago win, it means any state or local government can overrule any and all rights guarenteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Next thing you know, the cops will be able to kick in your door and search without a warrant or reason, will not have to read you your rights when arrest (or even allow you those rights), nor will any other Constitution right stand up against "state" law.

The outcome of McDonald Vs City of Chicago can very well be the the major case that determines wherther or not this country continues to operates by the basis under which it was formed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
Actually Oldvet that is not quite right.
The Constitution does nothing more than limit the powers of the federal government. State and local governments are limited by the respective state Constitutions. Many of our Rights have been "incorporated" against the states by SCOTUS and the 14th amendment. What this case is supposed to do is incorporate the 2nd amendment with them. If Chicago wins, that does not mean we lose any protections that already exist. We simply are not adding RKBA to that list.

This also raises the issue of folks in Washington D.C. deciding if we are smart and moral enough to govern ourselves. Can we be trusted to make our own laws for our own communities?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,499 Posts
Emails sent to all three of mine!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,130 Posts
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, mcp. Federal laws have historically taken precedence over state laws where there is a conflict, and this is just such a case. I believe "shall not be infringed" is meant for both Federal and state purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Done.... Thanks for the info...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Anyone know when this case is scheduled for oral arguments. Anyone know if CSPAN plans to broadcast the oral arguments, and when?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Anyone know when this case is scheduled for oral arguments. Anyone know if CSPAN plans to broadcast the oral arguments, and when?
No exact date, but its expected to be in February. Oral arguments will probably be posted a day or 2 after. The decision will probably be the last day of the term(June), since they always seem to save the huge decisions for the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
I as well have written a letter to Sen. Isakson and Chambliss. GA state senators.

Their pretty much pro-gun all around so I know they will sign it. And if they do not then I will find out and I will NOT vote for them again in 5 years when they are up for re-election.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, mcp. Federal laws have historically taken precedence over state laws where there is a conflict, and this is just such a case. I believe "shall not be infringed" is meant for both Federal and state purposes.
Yes it does. It is called the Supremcy Clause of the Constitution:

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
Yes federal laws have historically taken precedence over state laws. And they have been enforced by federal law enforcement agencies. But which section of the U.S. Code is being violated by Chicago?

As far as federal laws taking precedence, to the best of my knowledge that has been where the federal law is more restrictive than state laws. Like federal highway funds being with held from states that refused to lower speed limits or allowed blood alcohol levels. I am not aware of any cases where states were punished for having laws more restrictive than federal law. And Article 2 section 8 specifies what congress can regulate and section 9 lists some specific prohibitions. The most common excuse I am aware of for federal interference is the "interstate commerce" clause. This has been their excuse for regulating firearms. This is also the basis of some of the state sovereignty laws regarding firearms. The argument being a weapon produced in a state, and sold in a state is not involved in interstate commerce and therefore not subject to federal regulation.
Historically SCOTUS has allowed "reasonable restrictions" on various rights. Is Chicago's ban a reasonable restriction? I don't think it is even close to being reasonable. I don't think the court will think it is reasonable either.
But I still don't like the idea of folks thousands of miles away from a community deciding what is "reasonable" for that community.
But the again, with the history of politics in Chicago, having people thousands of miles away might be the only way to get justice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
The Supreme Court in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore (1833), ruled that the Bill of Rights only checked Federal authority. In response, the same Congress that created the Civil Rights Act following the Civil War wrote the 14th Amendment. They specifically amended the Constitution to rewrite the understanding ordered by the Supreme Court. They wanted to legally, and respectfully over-ride the Supreme Court as ordered by the Constitution itself: amending it. The most cited reason for applying the Bill of Rights against the States was due to some States disarming newly freed slaves.

By the way, just as we debate the topic in this thread, many of the Congressmen were just as surprised that the Bill of Rights already didn't apply against the States. You could easily argue that it did, until the Supreme Court ruled it didn't (as a way to keep blacks subservient).


Please read the brief:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521-ts.pdf
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top