POLITICS - DC vs Heller case potentially screwed by DOJ

otteray · Post by **otteray** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:23 am

What is going on here!?
We need to vote in an administration that truly supports gun rights.
For the first time in 70 years the 2nd Amendment goes to the Supreme Court and this is what the administration responds with.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/ ... file_1.php

otteray · Post by **otteray** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:34 am

This is why I am voting for Fred

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:40 am

What it says is that the benefits of a private individual being allowed to exercise their rights have to be weighed against the prevailing interests of the state.

It's late in the game for this administration, so it goes without saying that all pretense of respect for Constitutional rights can be safely disregarded.

Are there any remaining questions about whether or not this "Republican" government is a friend of the 2nd Amendment?

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:54 pm

That thing from the solicitor general doesn't even deserve to be quoted here. There is so much "muddy the waters" tripe in the statement that it sheds doubt on the future of the entire Bill of Rights.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:29 pm

it sheds doubt on the future of the entire Bill of Rights.

I wonder if the only doubt left is how much longer before they are all gone.

How long will the next dark age last? Where will the next home of freedom emerge?

I wish I had a clue.

Tom

ps I'm still in for the battle though.

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:39 pm

We are The Home of Freedom.

Freedom has to be paid for, every day, by us.

LeverBob · Post by **LeverBob** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:23 pm

homefront wrote:We are The Home of Freedom.

Freedom has to be paid for, every day, by us.

Exactly right

Bad times are coming, prepare now or suffer more later.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

LeverBob
Patriot

bunklocoempire · Post by **bunklocoempire** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:29 pm

We need to vote in an administration that truly supports gun rights.

A good start is voting for our Constitutution, Bill of Rights & Ammedments (that agree with our consitution) and advice of our fore fathers (who had delt with this stuff before).

Does Fred support the current administration? Or has he been critical of it concerning our Constitution?

Bunkloco

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:35 pm

LeverBob wrote:
homefront wrote:We are The Home of Freedom.

Freedom has to be paid for, every day, by us.
Exactly right Bad times are coming, prepare now or suffer more later.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

LeverBob
Patriot

The other shoe...

WASHINGTON--If the Bush administration gets its way, all Americans will be required to present Real ID-compliant identification documents--or risk facing "inconveniences" at airports and federal buildings--by 2017.

By Dec. 1, 2014, all Americans under the age of 50 will be expected to present Real ID-compliant licenses when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Exactly three years later, all Americans, regardless of age, will have to meet those requirements.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-984892 ... ag=newsmap

When do you think we'll have to start lining up to get our SSNs tatooed on our forearms?

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:37 pm

Well, we are the home of freedom now. Switzerland was long before us.

"The nations are as a drop of the bucket..."

There is no guarantee we will always be a free nation, or a nation at all.

I pray freedom prevails. I have to remember that propaganda is a part of any struggle. If we give up due to discouragement prematurely, the enemy will be very relieved!

Thanks for the reminders...

Tom

505stevec · Post by **505stevec** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:10 pm

its amazing that conservatives trusted Bush and his Administration. When the so called "Patriot Act" was signed it soon became obvious the man had no regard for Individual Rights. This is just an open and blatent extension of what he has been doing. someone wrote here the other day that Liberals should be very happy with Bush as he has done everything they have wanted to. It is true.

homefront · Post by **homefront** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:25 pm

If we give up due to discouragement

Tom,

We won't do that. What we will do is speak up, loudly, when un-American squealing and whining is heard, and stick up for our God given rights. By American I'm not referring to the policies of this administration or any other; I refer to the American Constitution. The Constitution stands separate from and above any actions taken by government; it is meant to keep government in check. If we don't hold our leaders accountable under the Constitution, the shenanigans they get away with is OUR fault.
We are too quiet, too compliant, too uninvolved and too disinterested for anyone else to keep what's right in sight. Our Founding Fathers spent a lot of time documenting what they thought was right, for our good as a nation. Bit by bit, we gave it all away after WW2 because we became too comfortable in our national affluence. It's time to rebuild. We could start right here.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:15 pm

Giving up the Constitution goes back at least to the Louisiana purchase, but I digress...

Anyway, I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, even though it was a while ago.

I'm still for fulfilling that.

back to work then...

Tom

rimrock · Post by **rimrock** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:19 pm

Vote the rascals out. We the People have to exercise one of the few rights which has not been trashed too much--vote. Don't let anyone be a career politician because they become too corrupt. no more than 2 terms, no matter who it is. It really is that simple. If the supporters of the 2nd Amendment got an independent elected (especially by write in vote), we'd suddenly the most powerful special interest this country had ever seen. That may be a bit unrealistic, but the 80 million gun owners of this country could totally change who gets to be the next President. Who would you most trust about gun laws. I know, I know they're all bad to a degree but we gotta one of 'em.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:54 pm

We need to vote in an administration that truly supports gun rights.

If your serious your only choice is Ron Paul.

engravertom · Post by **engravertom** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:08 pm

I've started looking at Ron Paul.

All the pundits are against him. he must be on to something.

Tom

L.F.Combs · Post by **L.F.Combs** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:24 pm

I know that this is going to pee some on here off, but I wonder where the NRA is in this matter with the Republicans. What happens if the second amendment is secure, and there are no longer questions regarding it's intent to allow citizens to own guns? What happens to the salaries of the NRA people?? I have not been a member of the NRA since the backdoor deal they pulled concerning strengthening the Brady Bill. I am mad at many of the Republican stances lately. Sorry if I upset anyone off, but it is a question to think about.

Bridger · Post by **Bridger** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:15 am

FWiedner wrote:
LeverBob wrote:
homefront wrote:We are The Home of Freedom.

Freedom has to be paid for, every day, by us.
Exactly right Bad times are coming, prepare now or suffer more later.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop...

LeverBob
Patriot
The other shoe...

WASHINGTON--If the Bush administration gets its way, all Americans will be required to present Real ID-compliant identification documents--or risk facing "inconveniences" at airports and federal buildings--by 2017.

By Dec. 1, 2014, all Americans under the age of 50 will be expected to present Real ID-compliant licenses when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Exactly three years later, all Americans, regardless of age, will have to meet those requirements.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-984892 ... ag=newsmap

When do you think we'll have to start lining up to get our SSNs tatooed on our forearms?

Then, my friend it will be time to become a Constitutional American. No government agency will EVER permanently put ANYTHING on me.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:34 am

From the NRA yesterday/today -

Statement of the National Rifle Association By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

Saturday, January 12, 2008

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.â€™s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residentsâ€™ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.â€™s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the governmentâ€™s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is â€œcentral to the preservation of liberty.â€

FALPhil · Post by **FALPhil** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:15 am

otteray wrote:This is why I am voting for Fred

I thought we needed a candidate that truly supports gun rights. Fred is just a professional party hack. Besides, he will drop out after South Carolina.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

Ron Paul is the only candidate with an unequivocal record on gun rights. But because he has been so marginalized in the Eastern Establishment Press, he has no chance.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:27 am

otteray wrote:This is why I am voting for Fred

Then you will only further this kind of tripe. Fred is first and foremost a TRIAL LAWYER. In other words, he takes money from the highest bidder to do their bidding.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:01 am

[quote="Ysabel Kid"]From the NRA yesterday/today -

Statement of the National Rifle Association By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

Saturday, January 12, 2008

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.â€™s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residentsâ€™ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.â€™s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the governmentâ€™s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is â€œcentral to the preservation of liberty.â€

donw · Post by **donw** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:30 pm

while one may contest the validity of the NRA's position on many issues, it must be understood that it does give voice to gun owners.

once a person looks at some of the proposed laws, they aren't so bad or idiotic as the may seem at first.

after there was much scrutiny by the authorities, it was ascertained the shooter in the virgina tech was indeed a "mental case" that "slipped through the cracks".

i think we all would agree that people like the shooter SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO LEGIMATE FIREARMS PURCHASING and there need be an adequate screening process to deny such person access.

remember when we were called "jack booted thugs"? hmmmmmmm...musta struck a nerve of some politician...could it be that the NRA and like orginazations are the voices of reason in the insane world of keeping legislators/legislation REASONALBE?

IMHO, most legislators are NOT reasonable (as is evidenced by both proposed and existing laws) when it comes to gun laws therefore we need to control, by way of our vote, who we allow to make our laws.

otteray · Post by **otteray** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:45 pm

El Mac wrote:
otteray wrote:This is why I am voting for Fred
Then you will only further this kind of tripe. Fred is first and foremost a TRIAL LAWYER. In other words, he takes money from the highest bidder to do their bidding.

How is he "first and foremost" a trial layer? You mean like John Edwards? Or like Abe Lincoln?
I think he has been quite consistant is his 2nd amendment stance as well as the other issues brought up in the debates.
He gives clear answers, not changing the subject to avoid answering.

Bret4207 · Post by **Bret4207** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:18 pm

I don't think Paul has a chance. Besides, his answer to the middle east is to let Israel nuke the Arabs. You think gas is high now, picture it when the gulf states are one giant piece of glass! Although Rep. Paul is strong in some ares, he's dismal in many others. I've been all through his website and his postings and speeches. "We'll just do it..." isn't a plan.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:19 pm

otteray wrote:
El Mac wrote:
otteray wrote:This is why I am voting for Fred
Then you will only further this kind of tripe. Fred is first and foremost a TRIAL LAWYER. In other words, he takes money from the highest bidder to do their bidding.
How is he "first and foremost" a trial layer? You mean like John Edwards? Or like Abe Lincoln?
I think he has been quite consistant is his 2nd amendment stance as well as the other issues brought up in the debates.
He gives clear answers, not changing the subject to avoid answering.

There was only one Abe Lincoln, love him or hate him.

John Edwards come a dime per six pack.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:58 am

Ysabel Kid wrote:From the NRA yesterday/today -

Statement of the National Rifle Association By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

Saturday, January 12, 2008

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.â€™s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residentsâ€™ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.â€™s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack....

All I have to say is:

BS.

They are lying through their Big Government teeth. If they beileved that RKBA was an actual RIGHT they wouldn't have argued for and supported a law that makes gun ownership a PRIVELEGE based upon whether or not the Government thinks your are "sane"or not.

It's either a RIGHT or it's not. If the government has ANY say in it, it's not.

That's how it works.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:07 pm

Ysabel Kid wrote:
The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government.

"Protects a right of the government"? There are no rights of government in the
Bill of Rights!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE OUR RIGHTS. Rights the government is told to leave alone no
matter what!!!!!!!

pshort · Post by **pshort** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:30 pm

Howdy,
The thing is: It's mental stuff this time, before long it'll be
parking tickets! Whaddya gonna do then?

Paul