Vice President Signs Supreme Court Brief Pushing for End to D.C. Firearms Ban

[kd7nqb]

Way to go, another reason he rocks.

 

[Lucky]

So most of you didn't read that as saying that Cheney signed a document trying to limit the scope of the eventual ruling?

I kind of read that to be a bad thing. What gives?

Like the way I read that if the SC rules the DC ban is unconstitutional, Cheney and a bunch of others signed a document saying that they want the court to not overturn the 86 ban and such.

How did you all read it?

 

[Run&Shoot]

Good grief, quit trying to find some hidden evil in this. We are so use to the political machine screwing us that now we finally have something going our way we have to tear it apart. "Yes, Johnny, that is not a birthday pony. It is really an evil Trojan horse. Let's gut the pony and scape out all those evil little men hiding inside."

Congress, and probably Cheney as president of the House, submitted a BRIEF. A group opinion and recommendation to the court. A BRIEF does not does not stop or change the course of a case. Geez.

Sorry, one of my cats just came in the room, but I know it really isn't a cat....

 

[Lucky]

Good point. They probably mean well. But you have to admit, the words say 'there's a right to keep and bear arms', but every single case they cite shows that that right is hollow. "In this violation of the 2nd amendment these reasonable restrictions were reasonably allowed, but everyone agreed those were unreasonable.... And later in this other violation of the 2nd amendment people agreed that those restrictions weren't actually unreasonable after all, but some others were unreasonable... And later in yet another violation those previously thought unreasonable were found to be reasonable, but some even further reaching restrictions were affirmed to be unreasonable - until the next violation..."

So the words say violations are bad, but they say the same words in every violation and they violate them in every succeeding violation. One has to question the value of such words.

I liked Rumsfeld's finding much better, they should have submitted that, if anyone would have signed it.

text here:http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/07_290bcongress_amicus_heller.pdf

 

[bogie]

Guys, the one thing that consistently HURTS the gun culture is that we've got a lot of guys who want "all or nothing."

Ain't gonna happen. Frankly, I'll take some good this year, and some more good next year, and some more good the year after that, and eventually reach the goal. Or we can keep getting "nothing" or even bad stuff.

And now several people will post saying that we need to draw a line in the sand... Sigh...

 

[Lucky]

I'm just saying maybe there's cloud to this silver lining.

What IF these politicians are all subtly hinting that they don't want the court decision to read that any previous 2nd infringements should be revisited by the ruling? I got the impression a lot of people here felt this case could undue a whole lot of 2nd amendment infringements that crept up over the years.

The way I read it both briefs agree on the common point that all previous legislation except for the DC ban should be kept accepted and kept.

That would be a bad precedent.

Just something to consider.

Seriously, Bogie, you call people into question for not trusting politicians? People say it a lot like a joke, but it's a real thing, you should not trust politicians, they will screw you over.

 

[bogie]

Uhh... I didn't say to trust the SOBs... But just to appreciate the ones who are mostly on our side, as opposed to the ones who are mostly against us.

 

[asknight]

Deaf Smith said:

His last deferement he took cause his wife was 10 months pregnant.

Uh, say what?

 

[W Turner]

So what if the brief does support not revisiting legislation that has already been passed?

We are never going to be able to walk into our neighborhood World'o'Guns and buy FA's and suppressors that we can take home same day. At least a positive decision by the SC provides fodder for cases addressing the wrongs of the future acts of legislation that are sure to surface.

A good decision by the SC provides ammunition(npi) against any legislation that limits ownership and sale of any thing currently legal in the future. That's about the best we can hope for.



W

 

[Lucky]

no dude it's challenging federal gun laws. Think about it.

edit:
read this from other thread:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=339872

P. Plainsman
Senior Member


Join Date: 06-22-04
Location: Red America
Posts: 1,039

Quote:
those rulings wont apply to much outside of DC but will lead to lots of challenges of other states laws
Remember that Heller is basically about federal gun control. The Bill of Rights binds D.C. directly (without needing 14th Amdt. incorporation) because of DC's special status as a federal enclave.

Anything that SCOTUS's Heller opinion says that D.C. can't do, is thereby automatically something Congress can't do, either. Federal gun control statutes will become open to challenge under Heller anywhere in the country. (Notice I didn't say they'll all be struck down under Heller; just that citizens will be able to use the decision to bring challenges to federal gun laws regardless of where they live in the U.S.) This is why the ATF and the U.S. Solicitor General's Office are so freaked out.

But it will take another, distinct legal step -- incorporation of 2A through the 14th Amendment -- before the constitutional limits on gun control announced in the Heller decision (whatever they turn out to be) will also be extended to state and local gun laws.

If Heller wins, the logical next test case to bring up the issue of incorporation will be a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban -- basically a replay of Heller, but in Chicago.