CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Thursday, January 17, 2008

What Is Bush Thinking? Ask Fred on 2nd Amend. Rights

My readers all know that I am a strong supporter of President Bush even though he has sometimes taken actions that leave me baffled. I am talking about such things as signing the McCain-Feingold bill, pushing for the No Child Left Behind legislation and involving himself in the Terry Sciavo case. This week Fred Thompson made a statement about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the overturn of Washington D.C.’s outrageous gun control laws that also left me baffled until I looked into the matter.

What has happened is that the Bush Administration has, unbelievably, filed a brief in this case asking that it be returned to the lower court for “fact-finding”. What this really means is that the Bush Justice Dept. wants the lower court to reconsider its finding that D.C.’s gun bans are unconstitutional, and come up with a less definitive decision that attorneys, politicians and gun-control groups can use to find ways to finesse this affirmation of our basic rights.

It takes a little digging to figure out just what is going on here, but it made my Florida vote yesterday (we have early voting in Florida’s primary) for Fred Thompson even more fulfilling to realize that Fred figured out right away what this action meant, and immediately spoke out against it. In fact, I don’t believe any of the other Republican candidates have made statements or are even aware of this development.

I have posted below an excerpt from the RedState.com blog and also a statement from the NRA on this subject:

RedState.com
Gun rights advocates were understandably dismayed when the Bush Administration Justice Department submitted a brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, the big Second Amendment case to be argued later this term, calling for a remand of the case for reconsideration of D.C.'s gun laws under a less demanding constitutional standard. Given the Bush Administration's support for an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment, many find it incomprehensible that the Administration would not support the D.C. Circuit decision holding D.C.'s draconian gun restrictions unconstitutional. The DoJ's brief is also a potentially unwelcome development in the Presidential race, as it could dampen gun owners' support of GOP candidates.

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa's Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.'s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General's request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding", the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was "overlawyering" and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The DC District Court in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, struck down the DC ban on the possession of hand guns even in one's own home. Judge Silberman ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to protect one's home with arms that pre-dates the Constitution.


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.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ 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.’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 government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

Labels:

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

7 Comments:

At 7:47 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

This whole business really leaves me scratching my head about President George Bush, and I'm in no way about to join the ranks of the dim witted irresponsible far Left Secular Progressives in this country. First, he signed the McCain Feingold Bill, then he started pushing NAFTA and "The Law of the Sea Treaty", and now this. I think that I'd rather have Fred Thompson in there than Mitt Romney or Mike H. Surely I wouldn't want Rudy J. who is, and has always been weak on Second Amendment Rights. You noticed that I didn't mention any Democrats for the obvious reasons.

 
At 8:28 AM, Anonymous Mason said...

That surely shows Fred Thompson is on the ball,,,I think he is the best of the candidates, would make a great president, but how do we get him up in the polls? Bush is a disappointment and he's gone too far to appease the left leaning Republicans. Once one starts wavering to be popular , one begins to lose one's credibility. Though I certainly admire him for his stand on The Iraq War and his policy in the mideast.

 
At 9:41 AM, Anonymous SC by choice said...

The whole idea that people have a constitutional right to have a weapon that is primarily used to harm another person, is somewhat baffling to me and many others.

How about a right to live free of personal weapons (guns)?

I know, if it was illegal for anyone to have guns, only the criminals would have them. But at least they would be a smaller percentage of the population. Now, almost any kook can go out and buy a weapon (gun). And don't tell me how all states do extensive checks before selling these killing toys.

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

SC by choice, instead of responding to your feelings, you should avail yourself of the statistics that show a marked reduction in violent crimes and gun crimes when states pass laws alowing decent citizens to carry, that show such citizens commit almost no crimes and have almost no accidents, and compare these statistics to areas like DC where guns have been banned for years.

 
At 10:12 AM, Anonymous SC by choice said...

We all know how any argument can be supported by statistics.

The smoking industry for years had statistics about the safety of smoking.

The only statistic we need to know is that smoking continues to be a significant cause of disease that results in death.

So yes, let's continue to argue that guns are good for our society.

 
At 11:07 AM, Blogger Leif Rakur said...

If the people of Washington, D.C., want different gun laws, or no gun laws, they can elect different officeholders.

The Heller case should not have been a Second Amendment issue in the first place. It has nothing to do with the continuation and effectiveness of a well regulated militia of the kind that existed under state militia laws in 1789 and 1791. Those militias were "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline" and they were considered necessary to the security of a free state.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

SC,
The plain fact that we can own a firearm in this country can make criminals who are intent on breaking into your house anytime day or night, a little more cautious than if we weren't allowed to own firearms. Even though you choose not to have a firearm in your home, the average home invader doesn't know this. He'll think twice. You've probably never hunted in your life, so you could care less about firearms. Maybe we ought to ban golf clubs. Some guys get burned up when they miss a putt and throw their clubs. How about, we ban cars, too? Automobiles account for more deaths in this country than firearms. Sure, there are nuts in this country who use firearms to kill innocent people. Would it make you happy if they used grenades or Molotov cocktails? The biggest joke in my State of Massachusetts, is all the foolish gun laws that they have here. So tell me; is the average gun offender going to obey gun laws? The biggest problem in this country right now are the Liberal judges who are putting these felons right back out on the street to commit more crimes, so that the Liberal Democratic politicians can keep whining and complaining that we need more gun laws. We have a new Bristol County D.A. named Sam Sutter, who by the way is a Democrat and I can honestly say that he is worth his weight in gold. Sam has brought about a plan to have "Dangerousness hearings" on gun crime felons which can keep these offenders in prison for up to 90 days until their hearing comes up. The gun crime statistics have dropped since he took office. This is only a small part of what Sam has been doing since he took office. All cities and towns across our state can learn a lot from him. Sam Sutter has said that he feels that all law abiding gun owners should never be wrongfully judged for the actions of criminals who use firearms to commit crimes.
The next time he runs for office, he'll have my vote. He's a Democrat worth voting for.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home