[southbysouthwest]

GWB Admin Screws Us on 2nd Amendment Case?

You guys that are following the Heller case may want to see what the GWB admin is now saying!

Government files amicus -- on DC's side!
Posted by David Hardy · 11 January 2008 08:41 PM

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.

{snip}


As I read this, the (Bush) Dept of Justice is asking that the Court hold it to be an individual right, but not strike the DC gun law, instead sending it back down to the trial court to take evidence on everything from how much the District needs the law to whether people can defend themselves without pistols and just what the DC trigger lock law means. THEN maybe it can begin another four year trek to the Supremes. That is, the DoJ REJECTS the DC Circuit position that an absolute, flat, ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, and contends that it might just be justified, it all depends on the evidence.

There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup.
· Parker v. DC

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file_1.php

 

[GUNRUNNER5150]

grrrrrr im hoping the SCOTUS comes thru for us and upholds the Constitution and the rights its grants the invdividual man, then we can tell all them anti states and cities to suck our collective ballsacks.

On a positive note, the ca court of appeals overturned the san fran handgun ban Lets hope our SC feels the same.

GR

 

[franks71vw]

GR5150

Iam with you but apparently you you have something with ballsacks.... lol just messing with you..

 

[Lucky#13]

I skimmed through most of the 35 pages of the DOJ Amicus. What it comes down to is that they fear exactly what we all want. That is, the broad categorization of handguns as "arms" in the context of the 2nd Amendment, therefore precluding outright bans of one "category" of firearms, would then easily be applied to machineguns as a class that cannot be outlawed outright. The doc is full of fears of MGs becoming more readily available by the same interpretation that would overturn DC's handgun ban. In other words, they are quite willing to sell out the people of DC in order to maintain their hold on the rest of us when it comes to MG possession.

The obvious fallacy of their argument is that MGs are NOT banned outright, at least not those in the NFA registry. Therefore, their argument is a red herring. Boy, would I like to have a nice little chat with the Soliciter General! The shame is that Bush's original AG and SG, John Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, were solidly on our side. It hasn't been the same since they left.

The full authority of Lucky#13's legal analysis is to be regarded with all the respect to which it is due, based on his longstanding legal experience, of which he has none...

 

[Roc Rat]

The full authority of Lucky#13's legal analysis is to be regarded with all the respect to which it is due, based on his longstanding legal experience, of which he has none...

Well now I've seen everything,,,, self-immolation!!

 

[southbysouthwest]

I skimmed through most of the 35 pages of the DOJ Amicus. What it comes down to is that they fear exactly what we all want. That is, the broad categorization of handguns as "arms" in the context of the 2nd Amendment, therefore precluding outright bans of one "category" of firearms, would then easily be applied to machineguns as a class that cannot be outlawed outright........

You hit the nail on the head here. They are concerned that a lot of the Federal laws will be overturned on guns. In closing, the Gov't urges the SCOTUS to kick the case back down the line and not even consider it.

C. THE COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE
LOWER COURTS TO PERMIT THEM TO ANALYZE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE D.C. LAWS AT ISSUE
UNDER THE PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY

 

[alamosaddles]

You hit the nail on the head here. They are concerned that a lot of the Federal laws will be overturned on guns. In closing, the Gov't urges the SCOTUS to kick the case back down the line and not even consider it.

I so totally regret having voted for him. The alternative was probably worse though.

 

[Lucky#13]

Tammy Bruce has just brought this out on her radio show this afternoon! (Along with getting practically orgasmic over the new Kimber SIS Ultra, which she has prominently pictured on her website, lol!)

It would be nice if some other talk shows would bring this DOJ Amicus out for discussion. The Administration needs a little bad publicity on this.

 

[Pvt.Joker]

Like father; like son-of-a-*****. Not that this should come as any surprise to any of us; this is the same man who offered to renew the AWB in 2004. I guess some really ARE "more equal" than others, eh, Comrades?

If we, as gun owners, are EVER going to be taken seriously by EITHER party, we need to make it VERY clear that IF the GOP wants our votes in the coming elections, that W does not get his wish. Or it's time to find a new party- or start one, if need be, and leave the GOP AND the Dems behind.

 

[hagar]

I think the only two that seem fairly honest is Huckabee and Thompson but it seems Thompson is to far back now to catch up.

 

[hagar]

Even though it is a good thing to have Sadam gone I am beginning to thing the real reason Bush Jr. went to war was to get back at Hussian for screwing Bush Sr. on the agreements signed post Gulf war in 91. Everyone knows that Sadam never lived up to any part of it and it made a fool out of Bush Sr. for letting him get away with it.