Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC Circuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.The brief is here.
And this is filed in the name of the Solicitor General. [More]
I trust no one is surprised by this fraudulent neocon pawn in the White House? You shouldn't be. They made their position crystal clear back when then-Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted briefs arguing that "the Second Amendment [is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
And naturally, government--the body the Second Amendment was intended as a people's check and balance against--is the arbiter of who and what. We've just seen the path for half of the pincer cleared--this is the other. They've been telegraphing their moves while we squabble over arcane details.
Anyone surprised by this latest rape attempt hasn't been paying attention. Republican Kool-Aid (who else you gonna vote for?) has a tendency to blur the vision and hearing. Mix that with a preponderance of denial and just about any sleight of law is possible.
Think about the language: "types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was what they said back when they asked the court not to hear Emerson. Here's what they say now:
Congress has enacted numerous laws regulating firearms. Those statutes include restrictions on private possession of types of firearms that are particularly susceptible to criminal misuse. The United States has a substantial interest in the constitutionality and effective implementation of those laws.At least they're consistent.
Tell me--with a straight face--that can't--and won't--be interpreted to mean any type of firearm, depending on what a particular jurisdiction thinks it can get away with, and that stare decisis won't then be used to bind communities where such sentiment does not prevail. That's what the federal courts do.
I see people already commenting that this or that Republican presidential candidate would not allow this on his watch. I hope they're right, but now it's time to find out. Anyone with contacts in any of the campaigns, let's make a concerted effort to see which one(s) will issue a clear, immediate and unequivocal denunciation of this latest treacherous act of sabotage--and pledge to not only rein in the "Justice" Department, but to start the process to repeal the very laws we have to march through bloody hell to take to court--only to have the doors slammed in our faces when we get there.
UPDATE: Uh-oh. I'm in trouble now...
6 comments:
shouldn't they be out building concentration camps for when the ruling comes down or something?
His Daddy was no damn good, and he has been a weak reed upon which put the weight of American liberty from the start, so it isn't any surprise that he has turned complete traitor.
Anyone who claims to be a 2A advocate or a freedom lover who votes for any Republican is part of the problem.
The world of the true fighters such as David and others is going to be a low-population zone.
Join us.
Get ready.
They're coming.....
Just for thought experiment's sake, what would the reaction have been if the FedGov had come out against the DC gun ban? Every left-wing anti-gun nutjob would be carrying a torch and a pitchfork in outrage. You know they would. And that would have catapulted the 2A and "gun control" onto the national platform and into the presidential debates. That's the last thing "we" want: drum up more outrage and support in the democratic camps.
This way, most gun owners will still vote republican, because the alternative is unimaginable, and democrats won't have even more reason to go out and vote than before.
I'd recommend not getting your knickers in a knot, support Fred Tompson, and vote republican as often as you can.
There ya go, Nimmy. Drink up.
Sorry, but Fred (Anti-first amendment) Thompson won't get my vote, in fact if the Republican party wants my vote then they will find more candidates like Ron Paul. Give me a choice that is not the lesser of 2 evils. We have had a Republican in office for the past 8 years and for a few of those years we had a Republican controlled Congress. Please tell me how much better off we are now than when we had a Democrat as President.
If you don't like Ron Paul then give me a different option with a similiar platform and the same integrity. I doubt that we would have been any worse off under Gore or Kerry. We may have been better off as the Republicans in Congress would have fought those presidents tooth and nail.
Post a Comment