Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by awkx

Although the Bush DOJ's response leaves much to be desired, check out how the DOJ brief might have looked liked under John Kerry's DOJ:

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

(This is an amicus curiae brief filed by former DOJ officials.)

And that my friends is the issue. Dismiss Bush as a idiot if you like but we live in a land of politics and compromise. As bad as every Rep is the Dems are a million times worse, especially on this issue. It may be a death of a thousand paper cuts but the other side would decapitate us with one blow.

I just wish that the DOJ did not muddy the waters and let the case be heard and decided as filed. F'ing bureaucrat!

Yeah, Yeah - I know - Ron Paul. But I'm annoyingly forced to live in the real world

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

Yeah, Yeah - I know - Ron Paul. But I'm annoyingly forced to live in the real world

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

--George Bernard Shaw

just something to think about...

[rwilson452]

It looks like arguments will be heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 18, at 10:00 a.m.

[Shawn.L]

Rep. Virgil Goode To The Bush White House: Withdraw Your Brief
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) has sent the following letter to the WhiteHouse asking them to undo the huge harm they have caused the SecondAmendment with the brief they filed in the DC gun ban case.
-------------------------------------
January 22, 2008
President George W. BushThe White House
1600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500

Dear President Bush:
Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. SupremeCourt in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans ofvirtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a courtdetermines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard ofconstitutional review. If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- includinghunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides-- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended theSecond Amendment as an individual right. I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw thisunfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflectsthe right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours, Virgil Goode
-------------------------------------
Rep. Goode is following up his action by circulating the letter amonghis colleagues. He is asking other members of Congress to add theirsignatures in anticipation of sending President Bush another copy ofthe letter. Your help is needed immediately to convince your Representative tojoin with Rep. Goode. Please go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center athttp://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written messageurging your Rep. to be a part of this important initiative. If youprefer to contact your Representative in another fashion, here is thetext we are using: Dear Representative: Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a letter to the WhiteHouse urging the President to withdraw the Solicitor General's veryill-advised brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller. Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted about the members ofthe House who have joined with Representative Goode. Thank you very much.
****************************
Of course, GOA is actively working the Heller case as well. In fact,just today our legal and educational arm, Gun Owners Foundation,officially notified the Court of its intent to file an amicus brief.We'll be certain to make that brief available to you as soon as itis filed. In the meantime, last week GOA issued a press releaseblasting the Solicitor General's action that was picked up bynumerous media outlets across the country. The press release isposted at http://www.gunowners.org/pr0801.htm on the GOA website. ****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply willbounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go tohttp://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mailaddress may also be made at that location. To unsubscribe send a message togunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe inthe subject line or use the url below. Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail addressgoamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add thataddress to distribution lists sending more than ten messages perweek or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

............

[DaveM55]

Got this in an email from the NRA.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the District of Columbia v. Heller case on March 18th.

Former Acting Solicitor General for the Clinton Administration, Walter Dellinger, will argue for the District of Columbia, while Alan Gura will argue for the plaintiffs.

The brief for those seeking to overturn the D.C. ban will be due on February 4; friend of the court briefs supporting their side will be due a week later.

[Brown-Bear]

Its gonna be an important summer for gun owners, Not just in DC but everywhere. This can set pecident for future cases in gun control. I'm terrified that the dems will get into office on the heels of Dc being able to ban guns all together, and then who knows what will happen from there.

BB

[jerkin]

It's long but is a must read. Beautifully done piece of persuasive writing.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa.../07-0290bs.pdf

[awkx]

Originally Posted by jerkin

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa.../07-0290bs.pdf

I was a little disappointed when the brief suggested that the Miller Court might have held that 'machineguns' (presumably including all fully-automatic rifles) are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment because "they were not “in common use at the time” such that civilians could be expected to have possessed them for ordinary lawful purposes". But now I think it was a smart tactical move. The Court isn't going give a binding precedent regarding whether machine-guns are protected (at most it will give obiter dicta). But it may rule on the level of review, and it would be most unfortunate if the liberal justices voted against Strict Strutiny (the highest level of review) because they were afraid of freedom to own fully-automatic rifles.

[jerkin]

That's exactly how I looked at it also, it was probably a necessary evil. All in all I think it was wonderfully written, I can't see how you could argue the intent of our founding fathers after reading it. I forgot, we're dealing with the Brady mentality, let me change that to "logically argue".

[awkx]

NRA's amicus brief: www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf

David Kopel's summary of it: www.volokh.com/posts/1202423919.shtml