Congress sides with DC Court on Gun Ban

[scjbob]

I posted this announcement because I believe it to be good news. I personally contacted my congressmen to ask them to sign the letter being passed around the house and senate. I was happy to see this article indicating that 2nd amendment supporters have an effect on our representatives when it comes to protecting our right to keep and bear arms. The DC gun ban has proven that gun control does not work.

[Dave in PA]

If you look at what Congress and the Senate does, and that is pass laws, I think they should be able to tell the Supreme Court that their opinion is that the Supreme Court should not interpret the laws too deeply and see things that were not in the laws to begin with.

But I'm not a legal scholar...... In my opinion, courts and lawyers have a habit of twisting things until the outcome fits their points of view. Really, I think the Supreme Court should look at something and instead of legislating from the bench, like some judges are apt to do, they should simply rule on the legal challenge itself.

From what I recall, someone once said about our justice system that it is better for a guilty man to go free once in a while rather than an innocent man be wrongfully convicted.

[Ramtuff]

Wow. I kind of surprised by this, but very happy also. It's a great opposition to the briefs filed by the White House siding with DC.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by markheck1

that's all well and good....but aren't they supposed to stay the hell out of the judicial system?

Any individual, or group of people, is allowed to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to voice their opinion of a pending case, or their opinion on whether or not the SCotUS should uphold or overturn a lower court's ruling. It's not considered interference, it's considered an opinion.

[cz_40p]

Originally Posted by Ramtuff

Wow. I kind of surprised by this, but very happy also. It's a great opposition to the briefs filed by the White House siding with DC.

The Bush administration told the Supreme Court that, although the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, an appeals court used the wrong standards in declaring the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.

The District's ban may well violate the Second Amendment, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in a brief filed ahead of a court deadline, but the case should be sent back to lower courts for evaluation under a "more flexible standard of review."

I don't think the Bush administration sided with the District of Columbia

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by awkx

Pennsylvania Congressmen who joined the amicus brief:

• Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA, D)
• Senator Arlen Specter (PA, R)
• Representative Jason Altmire (PA-4, D)
• Representative Christopher P. Carney (PA-10, D)
• Representative Charles W. Dent (PA-15, R)
• Representative James W. Gerlach (PA-6, R)
• Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (PA-11, D)
• Representative Timothy F. Murphy (PA-18, R)
• Representative John P. Murtha, Jr. (PA-12, D)
• Representative William F. Shuster (PA-9, R)

Time to start e-mailing thank you notes to all that voted this way. Don't let them think we don't appreciate it. Take a few minutes to show your gratitude.

I think this is a big plus for us. BIG PLUS. The Brady Clan is probably cringing up a storm right now.

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

"flexible standard of review" @ the level of the lower courts is ridiculous, they allready sided with the constitution...now it has been appealed to the Supreme Court, if they do their job the ONLY possible ruling will be that restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

what part of "...shall not be infringed..." don't you understand?!?!?!

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHands

"flexible standard of review" @ the level of the lower courts is ridiculous, they allready sided with the constitution...now it has been appealed to the Supreme Court, if they do their job the ONLY possible ruling will be that restrictions of the individual right to keep and bear arms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

what part of "...shall not be infringed..." don't you understand?!?!?!

And our "Freedom of Speech" doesn't have some stipulations put on it. Supposedly for the good of all. But you still don't have total freedom of speech.

I could see them "putting stipulations" on this one too. Whether it says shall not be infringed or not. Hey, they are doing it now aren't they. Whatever makes you think they won't continue or that it can't get worse.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by cz_40p

The Bush administration told the Supreme Court that, although the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, an appeals court used the wrong standards in declaring the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.

The District's ban may well violate the Second Amendment, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in a brief filed ahead of a court deadline, but the case should be sent back to lower courts for evaluation under a "more flexible standard of review."

I don't think the Bush administration sided with the District of Columbia

No, what they did really is side with the individual rights mantra but used and end-around to say that it can still be regulated pretty much as-is...at least that's what I've been reading.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by awkx

This is truly excellent news; the pro-control justices will have a much harder time getting away with deliberately misinterpreting the Second Amendment now that a majority of both houses of Congress have declared in no uncertain terms that it protects a fundamental individual right and that infringements thereof should be reviewed with strict judicial scrutiny.

Here's the brief: www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf
(right-click and choose "Save").

Pennsylvania Congressmen who joined the amicus brief:

• Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA, D)
• Senator Arlen Specter (PA, R)
• Representative Jason Altmire (PA-4, D)
• Representative Christopher P. Carney (PA-10, D)
• Representative Charles W. Dent (PA-15, R)
• Representative James W. Gerlach (PA-6, R)
• Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (PA-11, D)
• Representative Timothy F. Murphy (PA-18, R)
• Representative John P. Murtha, Jr. (PA-12, D)
• Representative William F. Shuster (PA-9, R)

People argue with me about Murtha all the time, I'm glad to see his name on this one as I expected it to be...anyone wonder where all our other "pro-gun" reps are now?