Congress sides with DC Court on Gun Ban

[rwilson452]

you missed Peterson PA-5 R

[Ramtuff]

Cheney just filed his own brief...worth the short read this article provides.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330171,00.html

[kpw]

Missed Phil English. He's on it.

[awkx]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

you missed Peterson PA-5 R

Originally Posted by kpw

Missed Phil English. He's on it.

Thanks for pointing this out. I searched through the PDF again and added names that I missed the first time.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

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.

This was how I interpreted it as well. Basically, the Bush administration is scared that any SCotUS ruling could throw the legality of the NFA/GCA/etc. into question.

Originally Posted by Ramtuff

Cheney just filed his own brief...worth the short read this article provides.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330171,00.html

IMHO after reading this article, it doesn't look like Cheney filed his own brief. Rather, it seems he lent his signature to the brief filed by the Congress (the topic of this thread). The interesting point is that, according to the article, it's the first time an elected member of the Executive Branch didn't side with the opinion of the sitting administration.

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

This was how I interpreted it as well. Basically, the Bush administration is scared that any SCotUS ruling could throw the legality of the NFA/GCA/etc. into question.

Well it should put those into question. While i don't know if i wanna see the NFA act go, i know the GCA probably should go.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Mtbkski

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.

You're right but freedom of speech is regulated only in that you can't use it in the commission of a crime (risking a catastrophe by yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the typical example) or to falsely ruin another's reputation (defamation). Neither of these activities are subject to prior restraints except in extrememly rare circumstances (you don't have to wear a gag to walk in a crowded theatre, nor are you required to posses a "license to speak freely," LTSF, to carry a pen).

Similarly, people should not be permitted to use guns to commit other crimes. If they do they get prosecuted. That's about as far as gun regulation should go.

[larrymeyer]

REad this link

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=10594

Statement From Wayne LaPierre And Chris W. Cox On Vice President Dick Cheney Signing Congressional Amicus Curiae Brief In D.C. Case


Friday, February 08, 2008


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.

[WhiteFeather]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

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.