55 Senators sign brief in support of Heller

[ky_man]

If you are in KY, send the following to our senators:

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/

Dear Senator McConnell,

Thank you for your support and signature on the recent amicus brief filed with the SCOTUS, and regarding the case of Heller vs. D.C., I am glad to know that you are supportive of the rights of law-abiding citizens in Kentucky and the Nation at large.

Sir, you can count on my continued support of your campaign for reelection in 2008.

Regards,

John Doe

http://bunning.senate.gov/public/

Dear Senator Bunning,

Thank you for your support and signature on the recent amicus brief filed with the SCOTUS, and regarding the case of Heller vs. D.C., I am glad to know that you are supportive of the rights of law-abiding citizens in Kentucky and the Nation at large.

Sir, I look forward to participating in your re-election bid in 2010!

Regards,

John Doe

And if you live in Louisville, send some hate mail to the dishonorable John Yarmuth, for NOT signing this!

http://yarmuth.house.gov/

 

[crashm1]

I wrote my congress critters praising two and tossing brickbats at the other. All three are Democrats but Feingold and Kind appear to be smarter than Kohl.

 

[crashm1]

Lichter said
[COLOR="[COLOR="Navy"]I'm pretty amazed to see my uber-liberal senator co-sign, Russ Feingold from Wisconsin. He's about the last person I'd expect to put his support behind this. Either it's a mistake or he's playing politics.

I just emailed my Senator, Feingold to find out why he signed on to this amicus brief and his stance on firearms in general. I'll be surprised if I get a straight answer.[/COLOR]


Actually I spoke to Senator Feingold a couple years ago about this at a town hall meeting in Pierce County where I live and he said he was wrong to support the AW ban. I remember him stating why he had changed his mind but can't remember what it was.

 

[Winchester 73]

I wrote my congress critters praising two and tossing brickbats at the other. All three are Democrats but Feingold and Kind appear to be smarter than Koh

Everyone is smarter than Kohl.

 

[crashm1]

So it seems. I think I will vote against him when I get the chance.

 

[TallPine]

These are intelligent people, but they are elected politicians. In their own way, they are trying to get out in front for election year campaigning, nothing more.

That might be true, but if so then it means that they recognize that the majority opinion of the general public is pro-2A

 

[teknoid]

All the folks we sent to DC signed. No big surprise there, since they want to keep their jobs. This is Kentucky, after all.

 

[ilbob]

All the folks we sent to DC signed. No big surprise there, since they want to keep their jobs. This is Kentucky, after all.

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

 

[Flyboy]

Nobody seems to have mentioned it beyond the first poster, but Dick Cheney signed it.

We now have support from the Executive Branch.

That's big. It would be bigger if Bush would do so as well, but having a signature from the upper levels of the Executive Branch would seem to help considerably.

Who's up for writing letters to Bush?

 

[AndyC]

"Dear Mr President,

Your VP thinks you're an ass for siding against the 2nd Amendment - so do most of the citizens of this country.

Signed,
Joe Q. Public"

How's that?

 

[precisionshootist]

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.

Washington is very worried about the possibility of overturning the 1934 and 1968 GCA. Overturn of those laws would require other cases but if Heller is decided correctly it's only a matter of time and Washington knows this, that is their fear. So they are playing politics with the court trying to get the court to make up something that is NOT in the constitution and that is the idea that "some restrictions" are okay and they clearly are not. Bottom line, the people specifically have the right to own machine guns as these are the weapons of military function today and it is this right that can't be infringed. It is military weapons that are protected under the second amendment, not shotguns for hunting rabbits. Trust me Washington bureaucrats from the president on down are scared to death of this case.

She said she hopes the case will similarly set a standard for how far the district can go in restricting guns without infringing on a person's right to defend themselves in their home.

This thought is purposely misguided just as the idea that firearms should have a sporting purpose. Someone needs to inform these guys that the 2nd amendment is really about defense of liberty and that can take place in ones home or ANYWHERE on the sovereign soil of the United States. They are playing politics, as the notion of defending oneself in their home indicates one
does not need an assault rifle (automatic weapons ) to accomplish this. Once again they are scared to death of losing thier ability to regulate what type of firearms citizens can possess. They don't want the people to have militrary weapons.

 

[Werewolf]

Someone needs to inform these guys that the 2nd amendment is really about defense of liberty and that can take place in ones home or ANYWHERE on the sovereign soil of the United States.

Our masters - uhhh - our esteemed elected officials know exactly what the 2A is for and they don't like it.

They're not the ones that need to be informed about the 2A - it is the people - they're the ones without a clue.

HELL! Ask the average guy on the street if the 2nd grants the people the right to keep and bear arms and 999 times out of a 1000 you'll get a yes. Heck ask the same question here and 4 out of 5 times you'll get a yes.

Sad...

NOTE for the NEW GUYS: The bill of rights does not grant any citizen anything. The founders believed that humans have rights just because they are human.Unethical Governments may restrict the exercise thereof but that doesn't mean one still doesn't have the right. In a perfect world governments exist to protect the rights of its people and thats the way ours is supposed to work. The Bill of Rights list those rights that the founders considered important enough that they warranted a special warning and prohibition to the government not to mess with them. That worked pretty well for the first 100 years or so.

 

[Mannix]

*sigh* I notice Ellison signed a brief the other way, and Klobuchar isn't on the list.

Damnit... more letters to write.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This thought is purposely misguided just as the idea that firearms should have a sporting purpose.

No, it's not. Hutchison has always been very pro gun.

This is a case called Heller, about a guy named Heller who wants a gun for protection. If you are talking about the Heller case and you defend the use of guns for self defense then you are talking about relevance to the Heller case. If you file a brief on a case called Heller, it's probably best to stick to the topic of Heller.

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.

One step at a time. Once the question before Heller is answered in our favor, THEN you move forward. It's a little too early to bring in every possible argument and scenario into this, and Gura knows it.

You will notice that the Solicitor Generals brief was all about machine guns, which have nothing to do with Heller at all. You will also notice that just about everyone has laughed at what a horrible document it is because it can't stick to the point.

Read again the question before the Court:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

 

[TexasRifleman]

By the way, the AP article in question has it spun where it appears Hutchison voted FOR the assault weapons ban.
She did not, at least the renewal. I can't find anything on the first one.

Here is her voting record on guns:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison_Gun_Control.htm

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.

Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004.

So I can't find one way or the other who said what, the AP article is too vague.

Anyone seen a transcript of this Heritage Foundation speech? I'd like to know what was actually said.

ETA: Found an interview with a Dallas TV reporter. Apparantly Hutchison does know guns quite well. Here is her position on "assault weapons". Turns out at least she does know the difference.

ROWLETT: Congress recently allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire. What is your position on that?
HUTCHISON: The kinds of assault weapons that are automatic will continue to be banned. Weapons where the trigger must be pulled each time are the weapons that are used by hunters and recreational shooters. But automatic weapons are banned, and they will be.

So that's good and bad. It's good in that she doesn't support any Clinton style AWBs, and good that she knows the difference but of course bad that she doesn't completely get it.
But finding any elected official that will state they support machine guns is impossible I suppose.

 

[Winchester 73]

By the way, the AP article in question has it spun where it appears Hutchison voted FOR the assault weapons ban.
She did not, at least the renewal. I can't find anything on the first one

Good news,TR.Kay Hutchison voted against the original AWB on Nov17,1993.
See the vote:

Home > Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 1152 )
Vote Number: 375 Vote Date: November 17, 1993, 10:10 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1152 to S.Amdt. 1151 to S. 1607
Statement of Purpose: To restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Vote Counts: YEAs 56
NAYs 43
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boren (D-OK), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Bradley (D-NJ), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brown (R-CO), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Nay
Bumpers (D-AR), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (D-CO), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Cohen (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coverdell (R-GA), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
D'Amato (R-NY), Nay
Danforth (R-MO), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
DeConcini (D-AZ), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-KS), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting
Durenberger (R-MN), Nay
Exon (D-NE), Yea
Faircloth (R-NC), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Ford (D-KY), Yea
Glenn (D-OH), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hatfield (R-OR), Yea
Heflin (D-AL), Nay
Helms (R-NC), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnston (D-LA), Nay
Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea
Kempthorne (R-ID), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerrey (D-NE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Nay
Mathews (D-TN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Metzenbaum (D-OH), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Mitchell (D-ME), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea
Moynihan (D-NY), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Packwood (R-OR), Yea
Pell (D-RI), Yea
Pressler (R-SD), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Riegle (D-MI), Yea
Robb (D-VA), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Sasser (D-TN), Nay
Shelby (D-AL), Nay
Simon (D-IL), Yea
Simpson (R-WY), Nay
Smith (R-NH), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Thurmond (R-SC), Nay
Wallop (R-WY), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wofford

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00375

 

[Winchester 73]

Anyone seen a transcript of this Heritage Foundation speech? I'd like to know what was actually said.

Sen. Hutchison Defends 2nd Amendment Rights in Heritage Foundation Speech

Highlights Majority Opinion of Congress to Uphold “Fundamental Individual Right”

Published: 02-08-08


WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Texas’ senior senator, today defended the right of all Americans to bear firearms and protect themselves and their families in their homes. At a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Hutchison discussed the issue in light of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which presents an important opportunity to affirm this right.


“Next month, for the first time since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of Second Amendment rights. Their decision will have major implications for all Americans,” said Sen. Hutchison.


“Tomorrow I will file and amicus brief with the Supreme Court with my colleague Sen. Jon Tester. We’ve gathered the greatest number of signers on a brief to the Supreme Court in recent history. A majority of both houses of Congress have signed our brief in support of the respondent who simply wishes to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself. In a situation like this, we feel it is important for members of the legislative branch to give our opinion on the legislative history and its relevant,” Sen. Hutchison said.


Sen. Hutchison emphasized the need to restore this constitutional right to residents of Washington D.C., who are currently living under the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, prohibiting individuals from protecting themselves in their own homes.


In 1976, the D.C. City Council banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Six D.C. residents sued the city over its firearms prohibition and the constitutional right to protect themselves. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last March that the city’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights. The majority opinion wrote, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."


Next month, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the District of Columbia’s appeal in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case this term marks the first time since 1939 that the Court will rule on a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law.


“The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense,” said Sen. Hutchison.


Sen. Hutchison introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2007 (S.1001) a bill to restore Second Amendment Rights to the residents of Washington, DC. She also authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Court affirming the decision and upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right. The amicus brief has been signed by 55 Senators, and 250 members of the House.

See the video of the speech here:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm

 

[Roman756]

Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban

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

Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban
Vice President Breaks With Administrat
Vice President Cheney signed on to a brief filed by a majority of Congress yesterday that urged the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, breaking with his own administration' s official position.

Cheney joined 55 senators and 250 House members in asking the court to find that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and to uphold a lower court's ruling that the D.C. ban violates that right. That position is at odds with the one put forward by the administration, which angered gun rights advocates when it suggested that the justices return the case to lower courts for further review.

In order to make his dramatic break with the administration, Cheney invoked his rarely used status as part of Congress, joining the brief as "President of the United States Senate, Richard B. Cheney." It is a position he has used at times to make the point that he is sometimes part of the legislative branch and sometimes part of the executive.

"That is one of his titles," Cheney press secretary Megan Mitchell said when asked whether it was significant that he had joined the brief in that capacity rather than as vice president.

The position puts Cheney at odds with a brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who represents

Lawyers said it may be unprecedented for a vice president to take a position in a case before the high court that is at odds with one the Justice Department puts forward as the administration' s official position.

"To my knowledge, I don't recollect it ever happening before," said Richard Lazarus, co-director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Center

The V.P. obviously takes his job titles seriously.Probably a first for a sitting V.P.
Great job.

 

[alan]

The congressional amicus briefs are encouraging and nice to see, however re the fact that this legislation dates back to 1976, the following questions come to mind.

1. Given the oath of office taken by all members of The House and Senate, how did this monstrosity get congressional approval in the first place.

2. How come that, correct me if I'm wrong, there has NEVER been a SERIOUS repeal proposal in the congress, who I believe could repeal the D.C. Gun Ban any time they enacted repeal.

 

[Winchester 73]

Well,there was a serious attempt at repeal in 2004.It passed the House.
But because of Schumer(if I remember correctly)it never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Someone on THR just mentioned this a few days ago.
Yes,just checked.LAR-15 in post #40 of this very thread has good recall of the repeal attempt.

 

[RealGun]

2. How come that, correct me if I'm wrong, there has NEVER been a SERIOUS repeal proposal in the congress, who I believe could repeal the D.C. Gun Ban any time they enacted repeal. - alan

55 Senators, I guess including Cheney, is short of overcoming a filbuster or overriding a veto. They have to break 60 on the enthusiasm scale. This brief is currently the best they can do in any timely manner, the way I understand it.

 

[DC3-CVN-72]

Post #85.

AndyC, could'ent have said it better myself !

 

[alan]

Re one question I asked in post # 94, I stand corrected, based on post # 40 being correct re House action. To bad about the action/inaction of The Senate.

Of course, the other question I raised, about the original passage and congressional approval of the D.C. law remains. The make-up of The Congress has changed since 1976, though the oath of office hasn't.

 

[Titan6]

ROWLETT: Congress recently allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire. What is your position on that?
HUTCHISON: The kinds of assault weapons that are automatic will continue to be banned. Weapons where the trigger must be pulled each time are the weapons that are used by hunters and recreational shooters. But automatic weapons are banned, and they will be.

Isn't this merely two statements of fact and one of opinion? Like most pols does not reveal a position either way, merely what is occuring to calm the masses? "The AWB is over, full auto weapons are still illegal".

I think this is the real issue:

But finding any elected official that will state they support machine guns is impossible I suppose.

Except, of course for that whacko congressman from Galveston who is running for President.

 

[alan]

Re the original heading of this discussion, "55 senators ....", interesting, perhaps sad to note is the following. 55 votes is NOT sufficient to override a presidential veto of legislative enactments, nor is it sufficient to shut off "debate" otherwise known as a filibuster. Of course, it is "something".