DC Gun Ban
Is unconstitutional and americans have the right to own guns for self defense ..
0
-
House Passes Bill To Repeal D.C. Gun Ban
-- Action now needed in the U.S. Senate
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thank you so much for your activism!
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives opted to pass Representative Childers' D.C. gun ban repeal instead of the anti-gun bill sponsored by Del.Eleanor Holmes Norton -- which would have allowed D.C. to continue enacting gun control.
The bill now goes to the Senate, but unless there is a ton of pressure put on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the bill will languish in committee.
Thankfully, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is spearheading an effort to get a vote on the House-passed bill. She is asking her fellow Senators to cosponsor a letter which she will then deliver to Sen. Reid.
The Hutchison letter points out that, "In DC v. Heller, the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right."
After noting that D.C. has continued to deprive its residents of their Second Amendment rights for more than 30 years, the letter asks Sen. Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."
(Norton's bill was the original HR 6842, but it now contains the Childers pro-gun language instead -- thanks in no small part to your efforts.)
There are not many days left before Congress recesses for the remainder of the year, and Sen. Reid is expected to try to run out the clock on the D.C. repeal bill. That's why it's important to act quickly and contact your own two U.S. Senators.
This is the last chance we have this year to put some teeth into the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating.
ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and ask them to cosign the Hutchison letter to Senator Reid. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Senators at
202-224-3121 or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
I was happy to see that the House of Representatives voted for the Childers substitute language which will repeal the D.C. gun ban (HR 6842).
I recognize that there is not much time left in the legislative session, and so I hope you will do everything in your power to pressure Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring up HR 6842 for a vote.
Hence, I urge you to cosign by Friday the Hutchison letter which urges Reid "to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes."
Gun Owners of America will score the signing of this letter in its upcoming congressional rating. Please let me know how you intend to act.
Sincerely,
****************************
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web.0 -
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=242614
Does this mean that the DC gun-ban will be in effect again?0 -
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file.php
The United States Government has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case.
And they ask the Supreme Court to REVERSE (REVERSE!!!) the DC Circuit's invalidation of the ban.
IMO George Bush is a traitor. He sold us out to the illegals and now wants to take away a right that many men have fought, bled, and died to preserve. If we have people in Iraq/Afghanistan fighting to preserve the so called "rights" that we have here in America, and our President is trying to take away those same rights.....then wth are we having these kids killed for???0 -
this is an intresting read a little long but good.
http://dcguncase.com/blog/0 -
quote:Originally posted by hisbigbootygirl
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file.php
The United States Government has filed an amicus brief in the DC Gun Ban case.
And they ask the Supreme Court to REVERSE (REVERSE!!!) the DC Circuit's invalidation of the ban.
IMO George Bush is a traitor. He sold us out to the illegals and now wants to take away a right that many men have fought, bled, and died to preserve. If we have people in Iraq/Afghanistan fighting to preserve the so called "rights" that we have here in America, and our President is trying to take away those same rights.....then wth are we having these kids killed for???
Glad to see you are awake to the reality of the government plan HBBG.[^]
One more awake, watching and guarding against the gathering storm of tyranny.0 -
Shame! The republicans could not like guns. They are all politicians. 0 -
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'
Posted: January 14, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674
c 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Paul Clement
Since "unrestricted' private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.
He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and "mental defectives."
His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.
(Story continues below)
Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.
But Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge to the handgun ban, told the newspaper he was troubled Clement suggested more hearings on the case.
"We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights," he told the paper. "This is definitely hostile to our position."
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.
But the newspaper said most of Clement's new brief urges the Supreme Court to decided most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.
He said the failing in the D.C. law is that it totally bans handguns in the homes of private citizens. But he urged the court to recognize, "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood . calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
The Justice Department long had endorsed gun controls until Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 switched the department's position to support individual gun rights, the Times said.
The court's hearing on the case has not yet been held.
Clement clerked for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and worked as chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. He joined the Department of Justice in 2001 and moved into his current position in 2005.0 -
I missed that part of the Constitution.
Must be in the part that says all women can have whatever kind of abortion they want.0 -
i can garantee that the "world" is watching and waiting to see where this goes, as to whether or not our people will be able to defend themselves. 0 -
I continue to admire Bush as a man, but not his politics. This is yet another topic on which he and I don't agree. There sure are a lot of them. 0 -
Why even have Supreme Court Judges?
Just get rid of them and let the government decide everything. That is basically what they are telling us, That the Suprem Court Judges mean nothing and only the government can decide what is right for America.0 -
If you read the WND article and others that that have been written about it, the filing did not ask the USSC to reverse the appelate ruling. What it said was that the 2nd is an individual right, but it doesn't mean that they can overturn Federal law because of it.
From the article that CaptPlaid posted:
"Clement is the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations," and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far."
Basically he is stating that the DC ban is unconstitutional, but the Federal Laws that are in place are not. I am sure that the JD is hoping that that language will be put into the decision and therefore there will be precedent from that point forward. Typical politician's double speak.
I honestly believe that there isn't a single soul on Capitol Hill or in the White House that truly understands what is written in the Constitution.[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
I honestly believe that there isn't a single soul on Capitol Hill or in the White House that truly understands what is written in the Constitution.[V]
that's the sad truth, IMO of corse. [:)]0 -
Looking at the past record and actions of the Bush administration, "they" could care less about the Constitution. Bush makes his own laws up---as he goes. What a bird brain! 0 -
i voted for bush both times (lesser of the 2 evils) but i think he believes he was elected Dictator instead of pres. i've become no longer suprized at anything he does or says. 0 -
Bush may very well find a way to stay in office past January. Hitler did it by burning the Reichstag and claiming Communist did it. Bush can claim Terrorist did it.
It seems both parties have become enemies of the people. I really hope I don't have to vote for Hickabee![:(]0 -
One more reason I will not vote for the "lesser of two evils" again 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Bush may very well find a way to stay in office past January. Hitler did it by burning the Reichstag and claiming Communist did it. Bush can claim Terrorist did it.
It seems both parties have become enemies of the people. I really hope I don't have to vote for Hickabee![:(]
I have been thinking this for a while now.0 -
Amusing bit of business.
Keep right on voting in the 'lessor of two evils". Prove over and over and over how really smart you are.
Guess you'all missed the statement.."I support the Second Amemndment..and we are going to enforce all federal firearms laws"...
That is an oxymoran. One cannot support the Second and support federal gun laws . Impossibility.
Sarcasm aside..did you really think they intended relaxing gun laws ? All you folks cheering the fact that there has been no new attempts at gun laws ignore how really busy they have been shredding the REST of the Constitution.0 -
Apparently, Bush is the bad guy in this according to you well-informed web-readers, but I have a question for you: when was the AWB made law? Maybe you got that one right, but if you looked it up on Ron Pauls' website; you probably got it wrong.
Aother question: How many guns did Al Gore let you keep? Again, over half got it wrong.
I'm still waiting for the day when lt, HB and all those other "true patriots who understand the Constitution" begin shooting up the place in order to save their gun rights......0 -
i just don't understand how some of you people think you can get your point across with such a bad attitude. 0 -
I have no interest in 'getting my point across' to ANYBODY.
Those with the backbone to look critically at the situation will understand every word I say..those like 505 will continue to support the establishment.
Operating from a base I.Q. level somewhat smaller then his shoe size, his undying efforts to somehow 'shame' me into taking a weapon out and shooting up someplace is indicative of that intelligence level.
I have witnessed for more years then I care to admit the sweet, gentle, seductive voice of 'reason'..bargain our precious Rights away.
Gunowners are the worst offenders of the lot..and deserving of NOTHING save contempt from people that support the Constitution.
Not the Constitution given lip service by the government and the NRA...but the REAL Constitution.
BootyGirl, there is a time for sweet words...and a time for harsh, cutting words..words that strike to the heart of the matter.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I have no interest in 'getting my point across' to ANYBODY.
Those with the backbone to look critically at the situation will understand every word I say..those like 505 will continue to support the establishment.
Operating from a base I.Q. level somewhat smaller then his shoe size, his undying efforts to somehow 'shame' me into taking a weapon out and shooting up someplace is indicative of that intelligence level.
I have witnessed for more years then I care to admit the sweet, gentle, seductive voice of 'reason'..bargain our precious Rights away.
Gunowners are the worst offenders of the lot..and deserving of NOTHING save contempt from people that support the Constitution.
Not the Constitution given lip service by the government and the NRA...but the REAL Constitution.
BootyGirl, there is a time for sweet words...and a time for harsh, cutting words..words that strike to the heart of the matter.
Well said and on-point sir[;)]0 -
I don't get it.
If a Federal Court of Appeals made its' ruling, my understanding is that it overturned the DC ban, not that the DC law is pending a Supreme Court ruling and the law is unaffected by the Court of Appeals ruling.
Shouldn't the DC law be invalid during this interim period and residents be allowed their guns until the SC rules otherwise?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
24 comments