Good news: Bush’s DOJ files brief arguing against absolute Second Amendment right
posted at 3:15 pm on January 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Unsurprising. Not only has Bush never been a movement conservative but his DOJ’s understandably worried about the shock to the system if every gun law in the country simultaneously becomes unenforceable next summer. So they’re arguing for flexibility: Yes, it’s an individual right, yes, the burden on the government to interfere with that right should be high — but it shouldn’t be so high as to prevent the government from interfering altogether. Behold, the dreaded ad hoc balancing test:
Although the court of appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that considers (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions
on the plaintiff ’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction… Under that intermediate
level of review, the “rigorousness” of the inquiry depends on the degree of the burden on protected conduct, and important regulatory interests are typically sufficient to justify reasonable restrictions.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
I was just reading about this and was hoping you’d post on it.
Spirit of 1776 on January 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM
This administration just gets better and better!!
Your Jewish Master on January 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
The Bush Justice Department sided with the fascist gun grabbers, twisting the knife he had already plunged into the back of conservatives. This year we cannot take any more chances with maverick, liberal, or Johnny-come-lately-conservative Republicans. We need someone who believes in his marrow that conservatism, by its very nature, is the only compassionate way to govern. Say no to: compassionate conservatism; I gave people hope; I made government work; I did it for the children, and other liberal malarchy. We need to nominate someone who does more than pay lip service to Reagan. In 2008 we must nominate a true believer!
Go Fred Go
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 3:22 PM
This reminds of Animal Farm; all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
All rights are guaranteed, but some rights are more guaranteed than others? Good to know.
fourstringfuror on January 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Its brilliant, isn’t it? I just wrote up a piece on this too. It makes no sense, even the Democrats are nervous as hell about this ban, and they’re nervous to admit they favor gun control.
I guess Bush didn’t get the memo from his predecessor. He really is a tin-eared dumbass.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
If our president is willing to go down this road, I don’t want to think about what Hilldog and Obama would do. ’specially since the playoffs are on today.
Your Brother John on January 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Remember in 1999/2000 how the evangelical “leaders” were telling us all how the only true pro-life conservative in the race was GW Bush? Are any of you willing to trust them again and actually vote for the Huckster?
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Actually, this is great news!
The GOP field is now free to run on “change”, too. with this brief, W takes one last dump on his base.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Of course, if they meant that, we’d be allowed hellfire missiles. The point was to be able to take out the standing army if need be.
TexasDan on January 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I can’t believe I voted for him twice! I’ve given up on the GOP hierarchy. They just as corrupt as the Dems and only a clearing of the whole house will make a difference.
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
*Ahem* Don’t forget to donate.
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
An absolute right would mean Crazy Eddie could buy a fully automatic weapon, present no ID, and not answer any questions. The day after Killer Jones walks out of prison he could walk up to a gun shop and buy any weapon he wanted, and all the ammo he could carry. An absolute right means an Al Qaeda operative could buy whatever weapon he wants in America.
We need some basic level of regulation. What should the balancing test be? I don’t know, but we do need a balancing test and not an absolute right.
indythinker on January 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM
The Second Amendment is “living and breathing”, see.
RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I’m still in a fog as to who I can stand to vote for and who will do the least amount of damage to the Republic
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
This could be very damaging for Romney and Rudy.
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Funny you should mention that. I just saw Mitt on CNN giving a stump speech with signs behind him, upon which was emblazoned the slogan…CHANGE.
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
There’s still plenty of time left for Bush to take more dumps on his so called base.
Bush won reelection in 2004 and then went on vacation with no forwarding address.
Yes, I have come down with a severe case of BDS. The only cure I know is a 4 year IV of Fred! :)
evilned on January 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM
*AAAHHEMM!!!* Don’t forget to donate!
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Yeah, and Bush is looking to throttle it, the stupid twat.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
How could we have been so deceived? I guess my RINO meter was way off this time.
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Touché!
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
what the hell? Does that mean the government can demand I trade in a firearm for a can of pepper spray?
Speakup on January 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM
….like pointed sticks, lead pipes, and Patchouli perfume.
natesnake on January 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Heh. Great minds and all that.
natesnake on January 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM
You do realize that until the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, that’s exactly how it was.
Techie on January 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The terrible thing here is that the Bush position is the worst possible one for gun rights.
While it would nominally protect the right to bear arms, the reality is that the second amendment would have no teethe at at all. Even in the most extreme cases of a gun confiscation–like in DC–gun owners would be forced to rely on a judicial regime and an unpredictable outcome to maintain our rights.
An outright refusal to recognize the second amendment right would at least have the virtue of unmasking the hypocricy of the court and serve notice for political responses.
Instead, all the headlines will read that the court found an individual right, but in the reality will be very different.
Nessuno on January 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I know about Rudy’s gun laws, but why Romney?
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Too bad I, long ago, quit giving money to the GOP and the other “Bush Agenda” money raisers. If I hadn’t quit already, I could quit now.
Could we maybe go back to 1999 and have “A Second Look at McCain and Keyes?”
LegendHasIt on January 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
The link to the GOP site is funny! That’s much more amusing than metamucil jokes, or “jokes” about bridges falling down in Minnesota.
Romney’s not opposed to “reasonable” gun control, I believe. I’ll wait to see if somebody already has a link for you before I go google it.
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That is exactly what I was thinking.
You think Fred will start to make something of this on his way around South Carolina? Because I think if he did, it might go over pretty well.
nailinmyeye on January 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Because Romney signed in some gun control measures in Mass, and still supports the Spooky Lookin’ Weapons Ban.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Everyone knows Rudy is bad on guns, but few realize Romney isn’t a 2nd Amendment stalwart either. A National Review piece said:
Other good news from the same article:
Only someone with Romney’s poor political instincts could manage to be bad on both guns and taxes at the same time.
More than ever…GO FRED GO
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Divert funds to the Kool-Aid war now. It has infiltrated the White House.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Remember in 1999/2000 how the evangelical “leaders” were telling us all how the only true pro-life conservative in the race was GW Bush? Are any of you willing to trust them again and actually vote for the Huckster?
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 3:28 PM
The evangelicals that are pimping Huckabilly are all from the liberal side of evangelical. We’ve had enough of so called “Christians” in the White House (Carter, Clinton, Bush) when are people going to stop being sheep and actually use a brain for once? Do we need to send of copy of “If Democrats had any brains they would be Republicans” to every evangelical church in the country?
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I’m sure that the available alternatives won’t be “functionally adequate” for the Fed’s. purposes…you know…like pacifying the masses. It’s hard to keep populations in line with pepper spray and tazers.
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Thanks guys!
funky chicken on January 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM
And you might think the Spooky Lookin’ Weapons Ban is a “reasonable” measure, but gunowners and people who believe in the 2nd Amendment don’t, and we’ll pay for it in the election in a big way if we go along with gun control legislation. Ask any Democrat, the AWB was a big part of why the ‘94 revolution happened.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Damn, even the Huckmeister has a better record on gun control. One of very few ‘conservative’ positions he takes.
BTW, speaking of donations…
clancy_wiggum on January 12, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Hot damn. Someone brought Ann Coulter into this. Now Hot Air will break a record for weekend traffic!
RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Precisely. Watch out for evangelicals and politicians who cozy up to Rick Warren(as Huck has done). Warren is leading many once-conservative evangelicals toward a liberal Christianity and politics.
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 3:54 PM
How did we go from Clinton (of all people) saying the era of big government is over to where we are today?
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 3:56 PM
To purchase a handgun in my county, I first have to fill out and pay for an application at the sheriff’s office who does a background check on me. If I am approved I have to present a permit granted me to legally purchase said gun. To receive a concealed carry I have to (at my expense) get a mental evaluation, take a concealed carry safety course, get the okay from my MD, and file another application with the sheriff. I think that is heightened scrutiny enough.
Les in NC on January 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
The GOP elite sold out, that’s how we got here. They turned into Democrats.
doubleplusundead on January 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
In hindsight, the delicious irony of Dubya’s 2000 campaign song becomes even more mind-numbingly delicious.
Kid from Brooklyn on January 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Lets face it, Pres Bush gets more and more disappointing every day. Lets note:
1. Did the right thing with the initial tax cuts.
2. Since the tax cuts, he has been absent as to conservative fiscal policy achievements
3. Did the right thing in Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 but his leadership post the good decisions has been terrible: he has handcuffed our military which has resulted in less killing of the enemy and more deaths to American soldiers, and when he should have revoved Rumsfeld and Abazaid and Sanchez for not taking the war hard enough to the enemy, he did not. Lincoln removed McClellan for a good reason. Bush does get strong if late credit for appointing Gen Petraeus.
4. He has basically sided with the terrorists when it comes to Israel by telling the Israelis that they should help set up a terrorist state right inside of Israel. I guess he has went totally back to Bush 41 and James Baker when it comes to the Jews
5. He has done nothing to stop his buddies the Saudi’s and Kuwaitis et al. from stealing billions of dollars in oil revenues from us
6. He made Condi Sec of State which has been a collosal blunder, from her screw up in Pakistan to her siding the palestinian terrorists, to her allowing State Dept employees to give us the bogus NIE, the total failure of the N. Korea issue, to her total incomptence in managing the UN and undercutting the best appointment Bush made, John Bolton.
Bush was certainly better than Gore or Kerry would have been so I cannot regret my vote, but he really has been a very big disappointment. This is something we must keep in mind when picking the Repub nominee for Pres. In my view Romney would be just like Bush, McCain could be worse, Huckabee, well who knows, Thompson seems pretty good, at times, I like Duncan Hunter but he seems to be going nowhere, and while I have supported Rudy, his campaign has too many Bush folks in it which is not helping as they are as arrogant as Bush’s staff has been. Mike DuHaime has to go, the guy has been a disaster for Rudy.
I am praying we get surprised by one of these characters, a good surprise that is.
georgealbert on January 12, 2008 at 3:59 PM
So, according to this, convicted felons who lose their rights are perfect examples of how the 2nd amendment can be thrown away. Maybe those felons also lose other rights such as VOTING (free speech), FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT (jail), FREEDOM FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE (jail cavity searches), and yes they also lose the freedom to bear arms. Using the convicted felon argument as a reason to restrict gun ownership of law abiding citizens is equivalent to saying that the right to vote, illegal search and seizure, stay out of jail for being a law abiding citizen, is also subject to interpretation.
Basically the argument that felons don’t have 2nd amendment rights so nobody else should is equivalent to we don’t really have any rights because the government can do whatever it wants to us.
I am scared for the republic. We are on our last leg.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I don’t see what the big deal is. Freedom of speech does not extend to libel, encitement to riot, or yelling fire in a theater. You need a permit to hold a rally on public property. All your freedoms go out the window if you are convicted of a crime.
Just because a right is not absolute does not imply the right does not exist. I think the DOJ hit it just right here, where it is your individual right to have a gun, but like all rights there are some real-life limitations that have to be considered. That is a far cry from the current state of the law, which seems to be that it is up to the government whether it considers you harmless enough to allow you to have a gun.
pedestrian on January 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM
But why? I don’t get it. Bush initially billed himself as a Reagan Republican and then, the first thing we got was NCLB. Then he was going to simplify taxes and privatize social security and instead we got immigraton reform. And our current candidates seem to think we want more of Bush’s big government. Fred was right. This election is a battle for the heart of the Republican party.
p.s. didn’t know that about Romney. Thanks. Don’t know about McCain’s record on the 2nd either. Anyone?
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM
look, it is either a right or it isn’t. Me getting a gun to protect myself is my right . . . unless the government says I can’t get a gun to protect myself. The government does very little to protect people. If the government says I can’t have a gun when I haven’t done anything wrong, then my rights have been violated.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
pedestrian on January 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Did you miss the last 100 years and what every communist country did? The first thing to go was the freedom of speech and religion and the next was the freedom to possess firearms of any kind. If the people can’t have freedom to assemble without government approval or own guns to protect themselves from the government,(the original intent of the framers) how can they truly be free?
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Maybe those elites were not conservatives in the first place. GOP voters have an excellent record of being fooled by these jokers. We trust their rhetoric instead of examining their records, and we seem to be doing again this year. One minute a guy writes an amnesty bill, the next minute he is the national frontrunner. A guy can embrace gay rights and distance himself from the Reagan/Bush era, but still gets endorsed by the most significant conservative publication in our country. In the name of making government work (for the children), a man can raise taxes, but then swear he is conservative and become a serious contender to be the nominee. When will we learn?
flyfisher on January 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I expect to see worse posts at the end of the Mitt McGulerbee administration.
Wake up Stupid Party members!
Valiant on January 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM
The best example I can think of for this is the LA Riots after the Rodney King verdict. The police did nothing. And I will never forget the image of two Korean shop owners standing on the roof of their store with shot guns, keeping a very large and angry mob from overrunning them.
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
When we stop expecting Republican to mean ‘Conservative’ and start a whole new party for Conservatives who don’t have to convince people they are conservative. It’s time for a 3rd party and it needs to be a conservative party.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
I think the problem becomes evident when you take a wider view of the various cultural and political trends that have emerged in the last few decades. The view is not one of Washington taking mild, tepid, steps in reasonably limiting certain rights. Nor is it one where Washington is working in the “daylight” (think immigration reform).
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
The reason for the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was based on stopping the gangs, the Al Capone wannabees, ruthless people walking into banks with tommy guns, and mass death shooting sprees like that of Bonny and Clyde.
We need an individual right to firearms ownership. Our liberties rest on it. What we don’t need in this era of highly efficient firearms is to return to a Wild West scenario. Guns should not be available to ex-felons, for example. Our liberties are compatible with modest firearms regulations.
indythinker on January 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Ah, but how do you define “conservative.” For example, would a gay marriage amendment be “conservative”? As Fred might say… so much for Federalism, so much for state’s rights.
What I see going on is a battle between the social conservatives (who want big government) and the small-government conservatives.
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Not my quote but I like it.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Do you think you have the right to walk into a school with a pistol drawn? The DOJ is just saying that the ruling has written to allow for prohibiting such things.
When has there ever been in this country an unlimited right to assemble anywhere at anytime? You certainly can’t assemble on someone else’s property without their permission, so the ability of government to restrict guns on others’ or public property is pretty clear. The idea of restricting gun ownership on your own property is a little murkier, but the fact that you can’t get a gun to your property without first crossing government property sort of makes it moot.
Yes, but this is a step in the right direction of strengthening the right, not weakening it. The DOJ is just saying there are some practical problems in the lower court’s ruling that need to be rectified.
pedestrian on January 12, 2008 at 4:18 PM
The problem is, with regulation comes fees and taxes that invariably apply across the board (see the pepper spray example above). I would argue that excessive fees infringe on a right.
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Candidates on the 2nd Amendment
J on January 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM
As well all know. Criminals obviously obey gun laws. So it is more than safe to take away the defense of law-abiding citizens.
BlackCapitalist on January 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM
…now all we need is “Hope” and I’ll be complete.
Kid, on this and your other comment (and so good to see you here) all that’s left of Bush 43 is that he’s still not Kerry. Great letdown. Are there any great men left, in Washington, or otherwise? /rhetorical question
Entelechy on January 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM
You nailed it. For the Hucksterites et al, big government is good because it allows their views to be forced on everyone using the forced tithe(taxes). Beware. First agenda item,… . mandatory hymen repair before marriage.
a capella on January 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
spolitics, CONSERVATIVE is by definition SMALL GOVERNMENT. But it is also CONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government was only supposed to be there to defend the borders and resolve disputes between the states. THAT position is CONSERVATIVE. The Federal government should be minuscule compared to what it is now.
A new party that was pro-life, pro-gun, anti-government spending, pro states rights is all that is needed for ‘conservative’.
Gay marriage is a joke being pushed by the 2% of Americans who call themselves ‘gay’. It isn’t against the law for them to do any sort of homosexual activity so their ‘rights’ aren’t violated. Marriage is an institution of the CHURCHES. Some people want ’separation of church and state’ only when it is convenient.
The homosexual lifestyle is as detrimental to the health of the community as smoking is (AIDS). . . but nobody is allowed to frame the argument like that without claiming to be ‘homophobic’. The government should not be sanctioning something that is detrimental to the health of society. . . but I don’t see anyone (even those who find homosexual activity abhorrent) saying that gay people should be arrested for being gay – so they are free in this country.
Those examples infringe on other people’s rights. Just because I have a right to have a gun doesn’t mean I have a right to use it against another law abiding citizen. The problem is that people don’t understand the definition of ‘right’.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
For the children, of course.
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I don’t suppose Malkin’s going to remember her federalist position that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the federal government from regulating arms? I distinctly remember her citing such a position when she opposed the federal marriage amendment.
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
you should. As long as you don’t fire it, you shouldn’t be breaking any laws. Would I question the person with a gun? definitely. But having ‘gun free’ zones doesn’t protect people from harm. . . Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. etc. etc.
The place where having a pistol helped was the recent Church killing spree in Colorado that was thwarted because someone had a gun.
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I’m no lawyer, but after skimming through the brief, it sure looks like the elephant half of the bipartisan Party-In-Gubmint is looking to switch the reasoning for all of the federal gun bans from “it’s not an individual right” to “we in gubmint know better than you peons what weapons are appropriate”.
steveegg on January 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Buy them while you can. I read somewhere that credit companies were refusing purchases by gun dealers because they were not face to face purchases. If the gun dealers can’t get them, you can’t buy them.
Les in NC on January 12, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Maybe if conservatives stood up for Bush every once in a while, Bush would have the political backing to be able to take a stronger stand for conservatives. The way so many of you are willing to throw Bush to the wolves for the crime of not being perfect 9in your eyes) actually makes me hope that some of you have to suffer under a truly bad regime for a while. You whine and cry like spoiled brats. When’s the last time you ever did anything for the President? Bush has done a hell of a lot more for conservatives than conservatives have done for him.
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Well, I agree in reasonable restrictions, like not owning machine guns and tanks.
I agree, too, that the need for guns “depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives” and we won’t need them once they invent hand held phasers, though I say that hesitatingly because there is the little evidentiary issue with the body vaporizing and all.
Other than that this is hogwash and both Bush and his clowns at the DOJ can STFU.
I am glad that Iraq is going well now, because without it Bush would have no praisable legacy. As for 2008, just remember that McCain, Giuliani, and Huck will be worse than Bush; Romney only a little bit better. Fred is the true conservative and the only one who will protect our liberties.
Dusty on January 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
ThackerAgency on January 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I don’t disagree with your definition. It just strikes me that there are a lot of Republicans out there calling themselves conservative who do not meet your criteria and a lot of people seem to be buying them as conservatives. It’s the latter that confuses me.
p.s. Traditionally the word “conservative” usually refers to the people who don’t want change. Since today’s conservatives are trying to undo Roosevelt’s socialist revolution, we’re the ones fighting for change. No point here, other than I love the irony.
Spolitics on January 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
I understand, but my point was that governments have always used what is “reasonable”, and have pointed to “practical problems” as a means to an end, not the end itself. Once these practical problems have been solved they will turn to the right and say, “oh look here are some more problems that need to be solved at the federal level.” Also, you have to figure in precedent here. And what I mean is this. You can almost hear a future democratic administration using this brief as a bases to further rectify those “practical problems”. They would say things like, “Even the partisan Bush administration wasn’t an absolute 2nd amendment administration.” Then the media would give Washington cover by trying to link it with as many republicans in Washington as possible, while ending the wire with a reminder that it was the former Bush administration who also recognized the necessity to limit this right. Don’t forget there are a lot of U.N. treaties just waiting to be signed, that would (as some believe) restrict gun rights here in the U.S.
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Why would you single out someone for special treatment who hadn’t broken any laws?
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 4:34 PM
That’s quite different. There is a constitutional and fundamental human right to owning a firearm. Marriage, however, is a commitment between two people. It’s not in the constitution, and really there’s very little reason for the government to be involved in marriage at all.
vonspringer on January 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
pedestrian on January 12, 2008
If you can amend my rights as to where I can speak and as to where I can own or carry a gun, then you are abridging the rights that our forefathers gave us. They knew what it was to be told what they could say and where they could assemble and were interested in making sure that lack of freedom in England was not imposed on us here. Just because some bad decision have been made concerning the “living” constitution, doesn’t mean they are right (abortion ring a bell)
flytier on January 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Arrrggghhh! just another reason why I do NOT choose to follow the link to donate…..
Allah – you are being sarcastic with the ‘good news’ right?
Frank Tait on January 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
To be clear, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to bear arms. We already have that right, because we have a natural right to self defense, including against the government if need be. The 2nd Amendment is there to check the government’s inevitable attempts to challenge that right.
Limiting the rights (or outright removal of said rights) is only right if the one’s whose rights are being limited abused the rights of others. To use the example of ex-felons having their gun rights restricted to apply to all citizens ignores that principle. So please stop making it.
sswoods on January 12, 2008 at 4:36 PM
From my cold, dead hands!
Fredalanche!© ◄ Donate!
TheSitRep on January 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM
My dad tells me stories about how schools used to have rifling classes, and that kids would carry their little .22 rifles on campus and everything. He would end those stories with an apology that his generation hasn’t been able to yield a country as free as the one he lived in.
Weight of Glory on January 12, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I just sent him another donation, but I docked him 1/2 my usual…because there’s no comment field to send in the reason I donated. I used the “occupation” field to send my reason, this time.
Fred staffers, if you are reading this, please let Koko know that in addition to sending money, we would like to communicate our reason for it.
RushBaby on January 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I have to agree.
Anyone that is a convicted felon, or mentally unfit should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Hell if VTech/VA did it’s job and gone through the process that shooting would have never have happened.
That is one thing I like about living in VA, the firearm laws here are reasonable.
I can go purchase a firearm, have the background checks run in about 1/2 hour (max 24 hours) and walk out of the store purchase in hand.
The background process involves checking my criminal/mental health records against roughly 10 databases on the State and Federal level.
To get a CCP file papers with the a court and I should have a permit after 30 days since they are a shall issue state (Fairfax County plays games with that).
During the time I don’t have a CCP, I am free to open carry.
Without groups like VCDL I doubt the process would be easy for me, and hard for felons.
Donate
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
My thoughts exactly. Being from the great state of Texas, I am truly surprised Pres. Bush would turn on us like this. I voted for him twice, but after his unchecked spending and now this, I wonder how I wasn’t able to see his liberal tendencies.
txsurveyor on January 12, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Its the Patchouli perfume that would make me surrender.
The Constitution means exactly what it says, no place that I’ve read does the word flexibility appear.
Thats the Constitution commanding all branches at any level of US government to butt out of law abiding citizens lives.
Whether its a weapon or a Ford, its none of the governments business.
Speakup on January 12, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Drawn no, In my holster (concealed or not) sure I should have that right.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 4:48 PM
To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history
Properly construed? By whom? Legislatures? Courts? Police? Or ordinary citizens? Strike the last one. Nobody asks what we think.
Interpreted in light of context and history? The context and history are to regulate firearms. So if the government passes law that negates the Bill of Rights, they are entitled to do so by precedent?
NNtrancer on January 12, 2008 at 4:50 PM
1975 I took gun safety at a public school. Many kids brought their guns. Now If I had to pick up a kid at school, I have to get out of the car and place my gun in my trunk(although the safest place for my gun is on me), or I am a felon. There are so many laws and restrictions it is hard to remember them all. A criminal does not care.
infidel on January 12, 2008 at 4:51 PM
No, the Bill of Rights (for most of American history) only restricted the Federal government. It was during the Supreme Court’s radical days in the fifties that it began the process of “Incorporation”. The Constitution only ever restricted the federal government from regulating arms. Many state governments had laws regulating arms when they adopted the Bill of Rights. Why would the Founders sacrifice so much to establish democracy and then put all of our rights in the hands of an oligarchy?
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Don’t forget to donate
Gregor on January 12, 2008 at 4:52 PM
This is why for the millionth time I say:
Giuliani? Gun grabber, and has defended it often.
Romney? Gun restricter, and has defended it recently.
McCain? Iffy on guns, won’t talk about them much.
Huckabee? CCW licensed, but doesn’t think everyone should have the right to apply for one.
Fred? He shopped for his Christmas gifts at a gun store.
People have said I’m a single-issue voter. I’m not. But one issue can make me scrutinize all their other flaws and ignore the rest. I was sad to see Bill Richardson go. Versus the big three Dems, he was the only one who supported Americans being able to keep their government in check. That crosses party lines for me.
The second amendment is clear. For 150 years, it stayed clear. Then came the machine gun laws. We did all right for about 30 years. Then came automatic weapon laws. Then came handgun bans. Then came “assault weapon” laws.
Finally, we started fighting back, and making progress. 48 states have some sort of concealed carry laws. One of the only two that don’t has a lot of recent cases challenging the ban on CC. The AWB was beaten back again a couple of years ago. Now we stand on the precipice of a decision which will strengthen American’s rights to make their government fear them, instead of being afraid of the government.
Do I sound like a Ron Paul supporter? Hope not, because he’s a racist isolationist America-blaming douchepuddle.
Folks, this is a real issue. If you care about it, look closely at what your president would do, because he has the veto pen, the power to appoint judges, and the power to put a lot of pressure on Congress. Remember that without the Second Amendment, none of the other ones are enforceable.
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Here’s some recent history about Romney and the 2nd amendment.
FloatingRock on January 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Trying to have his cake and eat it too. Can’t we impeach this jerk?
pat on January 12, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Ya, because for 150 years people had the freedom to control their state legislatures and pass laws that they, not nine unelectable priests, thought reasonable. If you didn’t like your state’s laws, you could move. That’s what kept the growth of government under control. People could and did move. Then came Incorporation and the Supreme Court decided that they, not the people, would be in charge of determining what laws were reasonable for the people to live under. Incorporation is what destroyed our rights. The liberty to leave is what preserved them for so long.
Incorporating the 2nd Amendment is what will destroy it, because it will give the federal government the right to decide what regulations are reasonable. That’s a right reserved for the people. Federalism is how government is kept in check.
There’s no way to say that it won’t work. It did work for 150 years. And the results were amazing.
JohnJ on January 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM
And let’s see, are there any candidates touting federalism?
Hmmm, let me think…
MadisonConservative on January 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Here you go
Gregor on January 12, 2008 at 5:12 PM
We have a winner.
I am also not a single issue voter, however the 2nd Amendment is my first issue, especially when you consider what the UN tried to do in 2006.
That is one thing Bush/Bolton did handle well.
F15Mech on January 12, 2008 at 5:13 PM
in light of this, why are so many conservatives apt to defend Bush yet promply characterize Giuliani as too liberal for the party?
its vintage duh on January 12, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »