NRA IS filing an Amicus Brief, FINALLY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's my fear. Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate so we can begin undoing fifty years' worth of leftist extremist so-called "judicial activism."
Click to expand...

The pity is that we don't have a CONSERVATIVE, PRO-CONSTITUTION majority in the Senate (& the House, also). Judicial activism is the result of LIBERAL court rulings & the "Constitution-as-a-living-document" crowd.

SCOTUS needs to make a ruling on this once & for all. If pro-2A, then there is legal precidence to dismantle many gun laws & nip the AWB-'04 in the bud. If anti-2A, then we have declared enemies to the Constitution & act accordingly (impeachment, peaceful civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc.)

But this hazy stance of SCOTUS must be discarded once & for all...

the Supremes are supposed to respond by August 7th with a yea or nay on the cert
Click to expand...

Two days & counting...:uhoh:
 
Look at it this way: If the Court takes a 2nd amendment case, either they uphold the 2nd amendment to at least some extent, in which case the long task of rolling back 60 years of gun control has begun, or they rule totally against it, in which case the backlash will make '94 look like a hiccup.
Click to expand...

Actually, upholding the Second Amendment to "some extent" could be used to justify the assault weapons ban, registration and all sorts of schemes that would ultimately cripple gun ownership in the US. Even the individual rights interpretation advanced by Ashcroft doesn't actually change the outcome of any recent rulings on guns according to the Justice Department.

The only thing different will be that slippery slope objections will be answered with the Supreme Court ruling that supposedly protects our rights; but what has really changed?

I'd be happy to see an individual rights interpretation; but it doesn't really mean we can all quit and go home. Depending on the decision, it could actually pose a greater threat to our rights than the status quo.

Dingle might be an improvement over Hyde on some days, (Malaria is an improvement over Ebola, too...) but Dingle DID vote for the '94 ban. Nearly losing his office afterwards might have put a scare into him, but we know darned well Dingle is willing to shaft us if he thinks he can get away with it.
Click to expand...

The only Representative I could find with a name anywhere close to that is John Dingell (D-MI) - who most assuredly DID NOT vote for the assault weapons ban. ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=425&can_id=H1990103 ). Did you mean someone else?


Aside from that, I was underwhelmed by the NRA Amicus Brief in Emerson and to be honest, I'm not really expecting an A-level performance from them here either.
 
Yes, John Dingell of Michigan, district a few miles from my home, who voted against the ban several times, all the times in fact, except the one time when his voting against it might have made a difference. Why did you suppose he had to resign from the NRA's board of directors? And didn't get a candidate rating for the '94 election, just a phone number you could call to hear excuses?

Take a look at your own link:

"Bill Status:
Bill Number: HR 4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-94)
House Passage Vote: 05/05/94 - Outcome: Passed
Placed on Senate legislative calendar but no further action was taken, never became law."

"NEVER BECAME LAW". Don't you wish that it "never became law"? Of course, it DID become law, thanks to a later vote, and Dingell voted for it THAT TIME.
 
Okay, let's say the Supremes rule the 2nd to mean the Nat Guard only and our private ownership rights go down the toilet. What's gonna happen? Massive demonstrations by citizens across the land? Armed demonstrations at government bldgs nationwide? Or here's a good one, fill the Mall grounds in D.C. with armed citizens and dare the police (well, by that time, National G's) to take the weapons. Anybody see that happening? Will they bring in the Apaches & chainguns?

If they take it the ruling will be middle of the road… THIS time! They will go for the rest of it after the next 9/11. They have time on their side...

The slow, inevitable erosion… Everything our Founders feared. "They" say "do it for the children." We should. OUR children. Beware the tired old man with a cause. We all have to go sometime. :uhoh:
 
My bad, you were referring to the Conference Report on HR3355 where the Assault Weapons ban was added as an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Bill (which was already a massive piece of legislation) in the Senate by Feinstein (the original bill Dingell voted against having died on the Senate calendar after passing the House).

You are right, Dingell did vote for it as did most (but not all) Democrats and several Republicans. However, Dingell was hardly a critical vote since that bill passed by 235-195 on 8/21/94.
 
Why does the word "impeachment" keep sticking in my mind. This is the epitome of the activist judge who is not even relying on our own Constitution to formulate -- and I do mean formulate -- the rulings that affect this country and will for years to come.

I am going to submit this to my Senators for consideration and, if I can, I will get this woman, and any other justices who joined her on these decisions, impeached.
 
Brett Belmore has it right. John Dingell voted for THE 1994 Crime Bill, which included the the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires next year. That bill passed the house by one vote. Dingell could have stopped it. The vote was 216-214, in favor. This vote was on 5/4/94.

http://the-tech.mit.edu/V114/N26/ban.26w.html

Dingell was previously "A" rated by the NRA, and included on Sarah Brady's "Dirty Dozen" list. He vigourously fought the inclusion of the AWB in the Crime Bill, but failed. It is generally believed that Dingell, a Democrat, voted for the final bill to save his president, Bill Clinton. Clinton badly needed a big political win at that point in his term.

After the Crime Bill vote, the NRA didn't rate Dingell, but posted a phone number to call for info. I called.
 
JimPeel:

Re your reference to impeachment of Supreme Court Justices who might rule to uncercut or destroy "constitutionally guaranteed rights", would that be grounds for such action. After all, they merely violated their oath of office, something that congress ctritters have been doing for one hell of a long time.
 
What the heck we going to do when they screw us over bigtime? Storm the Court and hang em high? Don't see it happening, I'm kinda torn on whether I want them to hear it or not.
 
I hope they hear the case. I figure we've got far more to gain than we do to lose. As it stands now, the 2nd is like a gun that's locked in a vault, and no one has the key. Yeah, it's in there, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good if you need it, does it?

So, let's break open the vault. We might find that the gun doesn't work. Oh well. It didn't work too well behind that lock, either.

At least we'll know where we stand.

I'm amused by those who feel it's a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He's been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he'd sign a renewal.
 
alan

The problem isn't that they have merely violated their oath of office. What they have done is to make the Supreme Law of the Land subserviant to international law in the absence of a treaty.
 
The NRA seems like the French Army: Good to know they're in the fight, but more important to know on whose side.
:scrutiny:
 
JimPeel:

Re your "The problem isn't that they have merely violated their oath of office. What they have done is to make the Supreme Law of the Land subserviant to international law in the absence of a treaty", we seem to be saying about the same thing.
 
I’m amused by those who feel it’s a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He’s been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he’d sign a renewal.
Click to expand...

Shh! Don’t you know it’s all just a clever trick to fool the Democrats?

~G. Fink :rolleyes:
 
Brett Belmore has it right. John Dingell voted for THE 1994 Crime Bill, which included the the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires next year.
Click to expand...

Yes, he does have it right and up until this point, so do you.

That bill passed the house by one vote. Dingell could have stopped it. The vote was 216-214, in favor. This vote was on 5/4/94.
Click to expand...

Now you are confused. Look at the Dingell's votes on Vote Smart ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...can_id=H1990103 ). On the 5/5/94 vote to pass the Assault Weapons Ban (HR 4296) in the House, Dingell voted AGAINST the ban. The ban still passed 216-214 in the House but went on to die on the Senate calendar as Senator Feinstein amended the Omnibus Crime Bill (HR 3355) to include the ban.

The amended OCB went back to a House/Senate Conference and after voting for restoring the OCB to its original pre-1994 form on 8/11/94, Dingell voted to pass the amended version on 8/21/94. The vote to pass the amended version of the OCB with the Assault Weapons Ban included passed the House by 235 to 195 - so Dingell's vote made no difference.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=159&can_id=H1990103
 
Whoops, my previous post appears to be in error.

It is not the Supreme Court's response that is due by 8/7/03, it is Lockyer's response to the Cert petition that is due by tomorrow (even though he has informed the court he intends to file no response). Some time after that day passes (appears to be about 2-3 weeks), it will be distributed for conference and then another two to three weeks will pass before the conference occurs. So it'll more likely be September before we get a decision on the Cert petition.

Kharn
 
publius and Gordon Fink

I’m amused by those who feel it’s a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He’s been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he’d sign a renewal.
Click to expand...

I voted for Bush, and would do so again (all of the Dims, in or out of the Presidential race at this moment, will actively try to reduce/eliminate our RKBA). However, I am like many on THR and elsewhere upset with a lot of the things that he's done - he's really NOT a conservative. I am also not terribly hopeful that he will be appointing a Scalia- or Thomas-type to the USSC.

That all being said, Bush said on the campaign trail and since ONLY that he would sign a renewal of the existing ban. Now, I don't like that one bit...BUT Bush is nothing if not careful with his words when he makes policy pronouncements like that. The 2 House and 2 Senate bills that are out there go either beyond or FAR beyond the original ban. This gives Bush an out, IF he wants to use it. He DOES have a choice...but I personally don't think that he'll make the right one, not given his record on "conservative" issues so far. He has turned out to be a consummate politician, which is to say two-faced (though still better than all present realistic alternatives). My biggest fear is that there'll be a USSC nomination sometime in the next year, and Bush will trade away our rights for the "mild" version of the renewal (which, of course, makes the ban both broader and permanent - so much for "mild") in exchange for votes on the nomination.

Our best hope is in the House - keep those letters and phone calls coming. That, and pray for the health of all of the Justices, at least until the AWB is dead.
 
I'd be more hopeful about him using that "out", if he had vetoed anything at all. More than half way through his first term, ZERO VETOS. Even of things he vowed to veto, like that campaign finance disaster.

This dude doesn't veto ANYTHING. It's all up to Congress on this.
 
Bartholomew Roberts noted that:

"The amended OCB went back to a House/Senate Conference and after voting for restoring the OCB to its original pre-1994 form on 8/11/94, Dingell voted to pass the amended version on 8/21/94. The vote to pass the amended version of the OCB with the Assault Weapons Ban included passed the House by 235 to 195 - so Dingell's vote made no difference."

In-so-far as Congressman did vote for legislation containing the AW Ban, from where I sit, which is not in Michigan, it does make a difference. By the way, Dingell remains, "better than some", perhaps.
 
Sorry for bringing this back from the dead, but the Supreme Court website for the case lists the NRA as having filed its brief on 8/7/03 (they're a little slow updating the website it seems): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm

So far, the following groups have filed briefs:
Pink Pistols
Women Against Gun Control
JPFO
SAS
NRA

Anyone know where we might find any of these briefs online?

Kharn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Briefs Filed in Support of Silveira v. Lockyer
Replies
1
Views
558
Brett Bellmore
B
K
  • Locked
NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN
Replies
9
Views
812
Gray Peterson
G
W
  • Locked
WAGC news Bulletin: WAGC S VS L AB
Replies
3
Views
502
WAGCEVP
W
A
  • Locked
rec'd. from [email protected]
2
Replies
26
Views
964
alan
A
M
  • Locked
NRA Amicus Brief
Replies
24
Views
948
ilbob
ilbob
Back
Top