Sign the Petition and Help Protect Our Second Amendment Rights
By Rep. Eric Cantor Posted in 2nd Amendment | gun control | Policy — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In a great victory for the American People, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the DC handgun ban saying it was a violation of the second amendment. For the first time in years a court held that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Defenders of the second amendment have been working hard for just this moment in history for years.
Last Friday, the United States Solicitor General filed formal briefs asking the Supreme Court not to affirm the lower court's decision. This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights.
Let your voice be heard - sign the petition today.
Please read on.
It is difficult to exaggerate what is at stake in this case; it is the first major Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment in over seventy years. This case will likely establish an important precedent on the issue of second amendment rights - let us make sure that it is one that protects our rights.
Sign the petition today – together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
Every candidate should be made to voice an opinion.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Tbone, where's GWB on this?
GWB is where the Dems are, as usual:
Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times. Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.
This petition information needs to get more widely circulated.
get enough recommendations, more people will see this... that and you could also let people outside of Red State know about it too
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I signed this petition because I want it to be known when the Supreme Court considers this case that I consider restrictions like the ones D.C. has levied on its citizens to be unconstitutional even though I support certain limited and well-defined restrictions on weapons. It is well past the time the citizens of the Distrcit of Columbia were no longer treated as second-class citizens.
What?!?! Why? Is there some rule or custom or something to where Paul Clement has to take DC's position? I realize Government lawyers have to take certain positions they don't agree with, but I don't see why the SG should have to do anything in this case.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
The SG is acting because Bush wants him to.
I have trouble believing that. I can't imagine one good reason why Bush would want that. Personally, it doesn't seem to fit him at all, and politically, it gets him nothing.
There's got to be more to this story.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
: rolls eyes : pray tell, what's so wrong with his 2nd amendment record?
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
If Bush wanted to defend the 2nd Amendment, he could instruct the Solicitor General to do so. This is a case of monumental significance. More here . . . http://patriotroom.com/?p=23.
Rep. Cantor, I admire your work and wish you a speedy rise in the legislature, and, perhaps one day, in the executive branch. But I think your characterization of the Solicitor General's position is not fully correct, and it would have been good to include a link to the brief so that RedState readers could more easily consider the question themselves.
Here is the amicus brief by the Solicitor General (in PDF) - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-...
The Solicitor General favors the recognition of the right to bear arms as an individual right. The office disagrees about the standard of review, considering the D.C. Circuit's standard so broad as to invalidate potentially many desirable federal gun regulations (such as the ban on machine guns and on possession of guns by felons). But on the fundamental question of whether the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to own a gun, the Solicitor General agrees with the D.C. Circuit.
The question at hand, however, is not whether the Supreme Court should recognize this right, but whether it is best to elevate the case to the Supreme Court at this point.
The Solicitor General believes that a final resolution of the case by the Supreme Court at this juncture could do more harm than good: "[B]road-based pronouncements in the context of adjudicating the details of a law that is far from typical could unduly skew the future course of Second Amendment adjudication." (p. 30).
The Solicitor General argues, "[F]urther consideration of those questions should occur in the lower courts, which would be in the best position to determine... whether any fact-finding is necessary, and to place any appropriate limits on evidentiary proceedings. Moreover, even if the existing record proved to be inadequate, initial examination of those issues is typically better reserved for the lower courts." (pp. 31-32).
In conclusion, the Solicitor General states, "The [Supreme] Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the [Supreme] Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand [the case to the trial court]." (p. 32).
I am not defending the Solicitor General's position as wholly right, and anyone is welcome to object to it.
But objections should be made to the actual position.
(By the way, I recommend reading the entire brief. It is not terribly long, and it covers a lot of fascinating material succinctly.)
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
(for those of you who do not want to read my longer post above):
"The [Supreme] Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the [Supreme] Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand [the case to the trial court]." (p. 32).
In other words, the Solicitor General WANTS the Supreme Court to recognize that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms.
The Solicitor General's office does NOT favor the D.C. govt's handgun ban nor does it favor the trial court's decision.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
in every thread? We get your point, here is our point. The people of DC and other gun banning cities deserve the same rights we have in more free parts of the country. This brief will at best delay their freedoms for more years and at worst help gun grabbers have more legal authority.
We need to come together, ignore the lawyers, and support freedom! BTW, I doubt the Supreme Court needs the Bush administration to tell them what to do.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I did not think of them as a class a week ago, but since the latest 2A diaries, I am down on them, Dem and Repub. No offense lawyers, but what you know that we don't, we don't need to know. Just act like conservatives and Republicans, and it will never be an issue :) and I am serious.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
People, not We the Lawyers!
amen Doc
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Ahhh, OK. Got it.
I'm not sure it's the right legal standard, nor am I sure it's the right tactical position. Nonetheless, it at least makes sense now. I see what's going on. I knew Cantor's characterization made no sense.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
I'm not saying the Solicitor General is right, but the diary's characterization of the Solicitor General's opinion is misleading.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
The amicus brief filed by the solicitor general does acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but it also asks the Supreme Court of the United States to remand the case to the appeals court. This would likely mean it could be 3-4 years before the Supreme Court ever decides if we are entitled to a basic constitutional right. Thats not good for 2nd amendment supporters not matter how you spin it.
The president of the NRA has already posted a memo on the front page of the NRA-ILA website:
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court."
In short, if you are a 2nd Amendment supporter this brief is bad news and may represent a betrayal on the part of the Bush administration. 2nd Amendment supporters do not want the case to be remanded. We need the Supreme court to uphold the ruling of the Appeals Court.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
recognizes the individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court would not fully resolve this particular case relating to the DC handgun ban, but it would declare that the 2nd Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms.
This alone would bring about a great change in government regulations across the nation.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
it simply returns things to the status quo, with the lower courts arguing whether or not the 2nd Amendment deserves the same level of legal protection as the 1st, the 5th, and a couple of those other pesky ones in the Bill of Rights.
The US Solicitor General, and Bush because the USSG is his proxy, got this one wrong.
destruction, as a compelling interest, and in any event, there is no need for "fact finding." Fact finding is a ruse of delay. The SCOTUS can decide the issue based on the principle. There are no facts that would justify banning hand guns from homes. I have found the level of scrutiny jurisprudence to be more of a game than a serious exercise anyway. And I have tried hundreds of cases and argued scores of appeals in the 4th circuit. Lower levels of scrutiny simply pave the way for more governmental power. And that is what the Administration is about.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I have never owned a gun but have always considered it obvious that it is a right from God to defend one's self and family. One of those inalienable rights.
I do think the meaning of the second amendment is debatable from a lot of angles, but certainly no angle that would allow the government whose founders signed the Declaration to deny We the People the MEANS to preserve our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and certainly that would be the case if only the forces of evil and the government are armed.
Moreover, I know from experience that 99% of the time when lawyers demand remands for fact finding its a ruse, a delay tactic. There are no "facts" to find on this.
I also know that the courts regularly make huge logical leaps to do what they want no matter the "level" of scrutiny.
I think this was the culture of Washington at work at the last minute simply being unable not to fight for more power.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
This is an issue I have been involved with for some time. I do not argue in front of courts, but I have been a part of groups that have changed the law for the better.
To me the entire thing comes down to the idea that American citizens have a right, endowed by their Creator, to defend their lives and those of others. I can think of no greater wrong than a government that denies a citizen the right to protect their own life, a gift that was given by God.
I find it absurd that a good man, a law abiding man, could become a criminal simply by carrying or owning a firearm. This is where I agree with libertarian philosophy. If I do no harm to you or others, how can I be commiting a crime? And there is another saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". And if a man is wrong for protecting his family, then I do not want to be right.
I am law abiding, I do not break laws, but there are many gun laws I find to be hurtful and not of any moral value. I feel sorry for those who live in places where their own right to life is infringed upon by an oppresive government.
I have read of so many absurdities here an in Europe, where homeowners have been sued by robbers simply because the homeowner defended himself in his home. Something is wrong here, and we need to stop quibbling as a party and do what we know is right. I normally do not get angry at those who disagree with me, but I have been tested in these 2A debates because I know what is right and what is wrong in this case, I am glad you agree, you can argue well and help the cause.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
claiming that only the elites can tell us what the Constitution means. That is a usurpation of the power we took from the King, transferred to 5 lawyers.
The elites construct an edifice of words to make things complicated to give themselves power.
The Constitution is written.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
- I am not coming down either way on that issue - but I don't see the point of expressing outrage and signing a petition against the Solicitor General's brief simply because it asks the Supreme Court "not to affirm the lower court's decision."
On the most important point, the Solicitor General is in agreement with most RedStaters - that there is an individual right to bear arms and that the Supreme Court should recognize this right before remanding this particular case to the trial court.
Whether remand is the appropriate remedy should not be determined as a question of policy - as those who are signing the petition seem to want - but as a question of law. If you read the brief, you will see that there are good arguments for remand and further fact-gathering.
But again, whether you agree or disagree about the need for remand, the fact is that the Solicitor General's office is arguing that the Supreme Court FIRST recognize that there is an individual right to bear arms and THEN remand. That recognition alone will change the entire situation toward gun regulation.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
And I agree that good arguments can be made about the "scrutiny" argument, but all those issues can be handled in the Supreme Court now. There are no facts that need to be found. And for them to claim that brings their credibility into question to me. I can't be fooled by the ruse, and I will not protect this little game the bench and bar play on this issue. It is a farce.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
is that the delay may very well put any subsequent action on this issue in the hands of a Democrat SG - who might be expected to have a view much more in line with the DC government. While I'm not much troubled by the SG's position on this, I am very troubled by the tactical situation it causes in the last year of an administration.
This is the way the game is played on controversial issues where a party doesn't have majority support; you just dig your heels in, get it tied up in adjudication, and wait til you can buy a more favorable administration. I've had it done to me several times at the state level. Frankly, you should never embark on a highly controversial iniative after the second year of a four year term. Your adversaries can tie you up in adjudication and come the election, any remaining appeals just go on the auction block.
Once again the GWB Administration shows its hamfistedness in actual governance.
In Vino Veritas
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
if anybody with an R behind their name knows how to run a d**med government. Anybody who knows where the restrooms and lightswitches are knows that pending appeals are just trade goods in an election and transition.
In Vino Veritas
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. ~Thomas Paine
Sign to promote the 2nd Amendment NO questions asked..
If a side effect of this petition might be "invalidate potentially many desirable federal gun regulations",
so be it, count me IN...
important to keep it up so people can sign. Also, spread this around to other boards, I have done it. This was brought up yesterday in two posts, I hope those reccomenders recco this one and we keep it here to organize.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Felons having an unrestricted right to firearms of all kinds?
No enhanced penalties for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime?
This is where the absolutist road leads. If SCOTUS affirms, then the next criminal defendant that faces enhanced penalties because he used a gun during his B and E will have a constitutional argument to make. Does that sound like a fun world to live in?
The Solicitor General has made a wise and judicious move, asserting that an individual right exists but that there are limits to that right.
Gar
If you do not think that the guy is ready to be a citizen, then he should still be incarcerated.
Out of curiosity, how well do you think the gun laws are at keeping guns out of the hands of felons?
Moreover, let's say that a 19-year old gets busted for moving 2 pounds of dope. He gets arrested, tried, sentenced, and goes to prison for a while (depending on what the minimum sentencing guidelines say).
He gets out, finds Jesus, becomes an upstanding citizen, a house, a wife, a dog, and 2.3 kids.
Are you saying that this now 35 year-old man should not be able to purchase a handgun if he so desired to do so?
If I say "You know what, this guy should be able to own a gun", does that mean that I support "Felons having an unrestricted right to firearms of all kinds"?
For the record, I also think that this guy should be able to vote. (Also, for the record, the guy in question is not me nor anyone I know.)
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
in this Country. Drove me crazy when "barrier crimes" became all the rage in certain job classes. Almost all of them would have any felony conviction on the list no matter what the job. So, somebody at age 19 crossed a county sheriff somewhere in the South and go a felony marajuana conviction in the sixties and is now unemployable in large sectors of the econmy? We just chose to look the other way on lots like that.
In Vino Veritas
The Chad
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Thank you, sir, for your work in protecting our Second Amendment rights.
Thanks for preserving constiutional rights of DC residents. How about helping them with that little issue of fair representation?
Full voting rights in the State of Maryland. Fixed that.
Constitution bans DC from congressmen I believe.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
to go against the Constitution - do you?
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
These are the kinds of issues I can agree with you on.
in its misguided request to have the case remanded back to the lower court for so-called "fact finding." Fred said he opposed a remand and said the case should proceed to the SCOTUS. Fred said this in a Town Hall meeting in Spartanburg, SC today when questioned about the case by Charlotte's 1100 WBT-AM radio talk show host, Jeff Katz.
Fred's view echos mine, that I posted here and on the other blog on DC gun case.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!