55 Senators sign brief in support of Heller

[Sam Adams]

Its nice that they felt the need to sign on. One would hope that their conviction extends beyond keeping their jobs.

I'd like them to have signed for the right reason - that they understand and support the Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA.

I'll be satisfied if abject fear made them do the right thing. The result is the same. Anyhow, part of what the 2nd is about is making our servants in the fed.gov fearful of ticking off the people.

“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Sam Adams]

Hutchison said she's willing to accept some restrictions on the Second Amendment, in the same way the right to free speech does not allow a person to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house.

I might have missed someone else posting an answer to this statement and, if so, I apologize.

Anyhow, the statement is a complete misunderstanding of the law. Laws against yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater do not involve any degree of what is known as "prior restraint." Prior restraint exists where a law prohibits something because someone MIGHT commit a crime or harm someone. An example would be prohibiting the KKK from having a parade in the black section of a major southern city. Note that I'm NOT saying whether such a law is constitutional or not - or whether it should or shouldn't be - I'm merely saying that it is an example of prior restraint. So would be a law that prohibits a person from buying a gun because they MIGHT illegally shoot someone with it.

Prior restraint in the area of free speech would, to be consistent with 2nd Amendment prior restraint, require the ripping out of one's tongue prior to entering a theater or other public place or, at a minimum, the obtaining of a permit (after a background check and the payment of a fee, of course) in order to keep one's tongue. That there's an obvious difference in what the courts have permitted in terms of prior restraint of the basic rights protected by the BOR is one of the great tragedies of our (failing) Republic and our (ridiculously biased and irrational) judicial system.

 

[precisionshootist]

This is a very specific legal question before the Supremes, these people signing this document are discussing that very specific legal point.

This is NOT some kind of sweeping ruling that will overturn GCA and NFA in one afternoon in March and this document is not designed to be the end all and be all of Second Amendment defense.

Wow, you missed my point completely. I realize this is a specific legal question, however I'm not submitting a brief to the court. I said in my post overturning GCA and NFA will require other cases but if Heller is decided correctly, that is the decision does not introduce non existent wiggle room for "reasonable restriction" it's only a matter if time before GCA and NFA go bye bye. The Washington bureaucrats can see this coming and they are concerned, very concerned! So the attempt is to file briefs to influence the court to issue as narrow a decision as possible and thus leave the sacred cow of "reasonable restriction" in place. The problem with this is that the only way to accomplish the goal of a limited affirmation of the individual rights view is to "make up" something that is not in the constitution. Washington is not worried about losing Heller they are worried about losing the NFA.

 

[Lichter]

Well Feingold got back to me, he even said that he " supports the right to bear arms for lawful purposes - for hunting, sport, and self-protection." I would have never guessed he'd say the last two. Well it's good to know we agree on one thing, in spite of the fact I oppose pretty much everything else he does. I'm still not voting for him.

Dear Mr. Licht,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison's (R-TX) amicus brief in the District of Columbia v.
Heller, which challenges the constitutionality of the District of
Columbia's ban on private ownership of handguns. I appreciate
hearing from you, and am glad to let you know that, along with 53
other senators, 250 representatives, and Vice President Cheney, I
have joined Senator Hutchison's brief.

I joined Senator Hutchison's brief because I feel strongly that the
Second Amendment provides a core constitutional right. I support
the right to bear arms for lawful purposes - for hunting, sport, and
self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and
we should not take action that tells them they are second class
citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. I was
pleased to join the amicus brief and await the Court's decision with
great interest.

Thanks again for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from
you in the future.


Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

 

[rocinante]

Feingold has a long history since graduate school of understanding and supporting the second amendment.

 

[alan]

Sam Adams Quote:
Hutchison said she's willing to accept some restrictions on the Second Amendment, in the same way the right to free speech does not allow a person to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house.

-------------

Re the above quote, I wonder as to exactly the senator spells "some", as in "some restrictions on the Second Amendment", that she is willing to accept. It also strikes me that her generousity might be less than universally shared. I also wonder as to the following respecting accepting of restrictions on what are the most basic of the citizens civil rights. Where does she draw a line? Possibly such statements as she might have made clarify this point. I do not recall seeing such clarification though. Could be that I missed something interesting.

 

[green-grizzly]

I thought this article was a pretty good take on why we would be better off without the old "Yelling fire in crowded theatre" adage.

 

[kludge]

Senator Lugar's (non)response

Man, I wish he would hurry up and retire. Here's his response for my asking him to sign on to this brief...

Dear Mr. Kludge:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts about the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia.

On March 9, 2007, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 in Parker v. the District of Columbia that the Washington, D.C. law banning the possession of firearms in the home violates the Second Amendment.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the consolidated case of District of Columbia v. Heller on March 18, 2008. I will continue to closely follow the progress of this case with your thoughts in mind.

Thank you, again, for taking the time to contact me on this issue.

Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator

If I didn't already know that do you think I would have bothered writing the letter?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Senator Lugar's (non)response
Man, I wish he would hurry up and retire. Here's his response for my asking him to sign on to this brief...

Quoteear Mr. Kludge:

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts about the possession of firearms in the District of Columbia.

On March 9, 2007, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 in Parker v. the District of Columbia that the Washington, D.C. law banning the possession of firearms in the home violates the Second Amendment.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the consolidated case of District of Columbia v. Heller on March 18, 2008. I will continue to closely follow the progress of this case with your thoughts in mind.

Thank you, again, for taking the time to contact me on this issue.

Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator

If I didn't already know that do you think I would have bothered writing the letter?

Unfortunately we won't get rid of him until he retires because this town generally votes party line Republican.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Feingold has a long history since graduate school of understanding and supporting the second amendment.

Except for that time in 2004 when he voted to ban practically all centerfire rifle ammunition under the Kennedy Ammo Ban bill (including the .30-30 by name).

 

[Winchester 73]

Except for that time in 2004 when he voted to ban practically all centerfire rifle ammunition under the Kennedy Ammo Ban bill (including the .30-30 by name).

True,but still a fairly honest liberal(oxymoron?) compared to Schumer,Feinstein and Kennedy.