WH: Public 'threatened' by private gun ownership
See the headline on Monday, January 14--scroll down a coupla blips to the WND POLL...
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
0
-
I really hope the Supreme Court does not cave in to pressure from the Executive Branch on this... 0 -
Well, this just sucks!
Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership
Government argues gun restrictions 'permitted by the 2nd Amendment'
Posted: January 14, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
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.
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 -
Many MANY "briefs" will be filed on this case.
Arguing both sides of the issue.
Now we know where the Bush administration stands on it.
Surprised???
Will wait and see how the SCOTUS rules.0 -
While I doubt this court will cave to the administration, many courts in the past have. FDR had many executive orders kicked back as unconstitutional with some very glaring exceptions, namely the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent. Not just resident aliens, but bonafied American citizens.
The broader question here is what the hell is Bush doing? Is this administration setting the stage for a Christian/Military dictatorship of the United States? Is a theocracy the only thing that can defeat a theocracy? Two gods battling it out?
Will the Reichstag now be set on fire and Congress dismissed under executive orders with Homeland Security and FEMA now the ruling body?
Is Bush the Younger pushing the Trilateral Commission like Bush the Elder? Maybe it's time to get rid of the tin hats and don a steel one?0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I doubt this court will cave to the administration, many courts in the past have. FDR had many executive orders kicked back as unconstitutional with some very glaring exceptions, namely the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent. Not just resident aliens, but bonafied American citizens.
The broader question here is what the hell is Bush doing? Is this administration setting the stage for a Christian/Military dictatorship of the United States? Is a theocracy the only thing that can defeat a theocracy? Two gods battling it out?
Will the Reichstag now be set on fire and Congress dismissed under executive orders with Homeland Security and FEMA now the ruling body?
Is Bush the Younger pushing the Trilateral Commission like Bush the Elder? Maybe it's time to get rid of the tin hats and don a steel one?
I, for one, am having (for quite a while now) serious doubts as to the authenticity of W's "faith."0 -
Oh well... you folks elected him. Hope you have fun if Bush gets his way. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Oh well... you folks elected him. Hope you have fun if Bush gets his way.
Do you really think we'd have been better off with John Kerry? Tell me the truth, do you? We'd have been in the cess pool much sooner, I'm afraid.[:(][V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Oh well... you folks elected him. Hope you have fun if Bush gets his way.
Do you really think we'd have been better off with John Kerry? Tell me the truth, do you? We'd have been in the cess pool much sooner, I'm afraid.[:(][V]
See, that's why I think EMM's comment is, to be blunt, dumb... unless he's of the opinion that at least with Kerry, you'd get what you expected.
I'm sorry, but if Kerry was in the WH, you can bet Chuck Schumer would have about 20 bills on his desk just ready to be signed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Oh well... you folks elected him. Hope you have fun if Bush gets his way.
Do you really think we'd have been better off with John Kerry? Tell me the truth, do you? We'd have been in the cess pool much sooner, I'm afraid.[:(][V]
Looks like we've found ourselves in the "cess pool" regardless....[V]0 -
Way to sell out the public once again GW. Sometime in my lifetime there is going to be a government revolt.... question is how soon are enough people going to wake up and see were being pounded in thebut by the elite politicians. Its not democrat vs Republican.... its the elites vs the middle class! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ladams
Way to sell out the public once again GW. Sometime in my lifetime there is going to be a government revolt.... question is how soon are enough people going to wake up and see were being pounded in thebut by the elite politicians. Its not democrat vs Republican.... its the elites vs the middle class!
A.K.A. the haves vs. the have nots.
And to Racks Ops, yes, we're in the cesspool, for sure. We'd only have arrived there sooner under J. Kerry.0 -
I voted for Bush twice, and he has really dissapointed me over these last two years. It will be a cold day in Hell before another Bush family member gets my vote, and that goes for the Republican party. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
And to Racks Ops, yes, we're in the cesspool, for sure. We'd only have arrived here sooner under J. Kerry.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace"
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 17760 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace"
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776
+ Infinity. Those true words are just so relavent today. I want my children/grandchildren to be able to have prospreity and peace.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I doubt this court will cave to the administration, many courts in the past have. FDR had many executive orders kicked back as unconstitutional with some very glaring exceptions, namely the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent. Not just resident aliens, but bonafied American citizens.
The broader question here is what the hell is Bush doing? Is this administration setting the stage for a Christian/Military dictatorship of the United States? Is a theocracy the only thing that can defeat a theocracy? Two gods battling it out?
Will the Reichstag now be set on fire and Congress dismissed under executive orders with Homeland Security and FEMA now the ruling body?
Is Bush the Younger pushing the Trilateral Commission like Bush the Elder? Maybe it's time to get rid of the tin hats and don a steel one?
I, for one, am having (for quite a while now) serious doubts as to the authenticity of W's "faith."
I don't doubt his faith Ram...I am almost certain that his faith is sincere...but I have gotten to the point that I cannot hardly stand the man.[:(]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments