55 Senators sign brief in support of Heller

Status
Not open for further replies.
AP Texas News



Feb. 7, 2008, 7:51PM
Hutchison urging court to overturn D.C. gun bans


By SUZANNE GAMBOA Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments (1) Recommend
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who might start a run for Texas governor next year, has mustered support from a majority of Senate and House members to help persuade the Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia's gun laws.

Hutchison said Thursday she is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in a challenge to the laws. Fifty-five senators and 250 House members have signed the brief to be filed Thursday by her and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.

Hutchison has long opposed the district's ban on handguns and requirement that rifles and shotguns be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. She has sponsored legislation several times to overturn the district's laws. Her 2004 bill passed the House, but not the Senate.

The district's law forced her to dismantle and return to Texas her .357 Magnum she brought with her when she moved from Austin.

"In Texas, of course, the right to keep and bear arms is well-settled. In fact, when in Texas you talk about gun control, they mean using two hands," Hutchison quipped in a speech organized by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

A federal appeals court ruled in March that the district's ban is an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

The district appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. Hutchison argues it is an individual right. The court is expected to hear arguments next month.

"All of the congressional legislative history is assuming that the Second Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right and for a city or state to thwart this by taking a person's right in their home to have a loaded gun, just seemed to be a perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm this individual right that Congress has acknowledged throughout its history," Hutchison said.

Tester said the writers of the Constitution did not intend for laws to be applied to some people and not others or to be applied some times and not others.

"We cannot restrict the right to bear arms just like we can't restrict the right to practice religion or the right of a free and independent press," Tester said.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the congressional delegate for Washington, D.C., said Hutchison's brief is an attempt to get done in the courts what she couldn't get done in Congress. Norton and others have filed friend-of-the court briefs in support of the law.

Norton said the rules have been supported by all four mayors the district has had since it got home rule and has not been opposed by any City Council members.

"This is entirely a home rule, self-government matter. That is not anybody's business but our own," Norton said.

Hutchison said she's willing to accept some restrictions on the Second Amendment, in the same way the right to free speech does not allow a person to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house. She said she hopes the case will similarly set a standard for how far the district can go in restricting guns without infringing on a person's right to defend themselves in their home.

___

On the Net: U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the congressional delegate for Washington, D.C., said Hutchison's brief is an attempt to get done in the courts what she couldn't get done in Congress. Norton and others have filed friend-of-the court briefs in support of the law.

Norton said the rules have been supported by all four mayors the district has had since it got home rule and has not been opposed by any City Council members.

"This is entirely a home rule, self-government matter. That is not anybody's business but our own," Norton said.

Funny, but every time anyone brings up the right to legislate away a civil right, I always think back to the right to vote. Yeah, you have the right to vote as long as you could pay a poll tax or pass a literacy test. And as far as local business, heard that, seen that in the Old South too, as far as civil rights is concerned. It all depends on who's civil rights your messin' with.;)
 
"This is entirely a home rule, self-government matter. That is not anybody's business but our own," Norton said.

[sarcasm] We been treatin' our colored folk this way a long, long time. They ain't complainin' none. Ain't hardly none of your bus'ness, so g'wan back home. [/sarcasm]
 
Who were the signers? If there are 55 of them, then we have some Democrats who supported us, and we need to write them letters of thanks.
 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the congressional delegate for Washington, D.C., said
"This is entirely a home rule, self-government matter. That is not anybody's business but our own,"

Yup, respect those boundaries....which is why DC has tried to influence firearms policies across the bridges in VA and MD so often.
 
Be very careful of what they say

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mrs. Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid, citing their support for banning assault weapons."


First, the principle that the 2A is an individual right period, then, the definition of "arms" and what constitutes "arms" will need to be decided.
 
I'm sure the justices are wondering why this is in their lap, if more than haf of the senate and two thirds of the house agree this law is a bad idea.
 
Wow, I mean just wow.

This is amazing in a democratic controlled congress.

Yeah, I know, be careful of the wording. But they COULD have filed in favor DC. And they didn't. And the MOST crucial thing here is the definition of the 2A as an individual right. That will be a critical thing to lock in with a SCOTUS decision. That's the legal foot in the door for lots of work yet to come.

So this is very good and rather surprising news.
 
I'm sure the justices are wondering why this is in their lap, if more than haf of the senate and two thirds of the house agree this law is a bad idea.

Ah, perhaps a bit of information is in order. Amongst other things the Supreme Court exists to unify opinion when there is disagreement amongst the lower courts. Since we have several circuit courts saying one thing, and several others saying something else, eventually the Supreme Court was going to have to get involved to resolve the contradictions and unify the law.

The only surprise anyone on that level is facing is that they were able to put RKBA hearings off for so long.
 
"Mrs. Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, Montana Democrat, who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid, citing their support for banning assault weapons."

Sounds more like bad reporting to me. I don't know about Tester, who has a fairly short Senate voting record, but Senator Hutchinson has voted against the AWB or its renewal every time it came up in the Senate IIRC.
 
The only surprise anyone on that level is facing is that they were able to put RKBA hearings off for so long.

It's hard for a law-abiding person to get standing and the backing of a law firm with money enough to fight the case. I'm sure Heller doesn't have the money.

Precident is set when trying criminals and by prosecutors piling on convitions... because conviction numbers mean re-election. Normal people can't fight the precident (by intentionally breaking the law and being prosecuted) because they have families to support and don't want to go to jail.

Somehow we've got to find a way to fight these laws in court... that won't immediately get dismissed due to lack of standing... some way that we can prove injury... maybe the dead people in DC/NYC/LA could file a law suit claiming they were injured by not being allowed the right to a firearm... OK so maybe that wouldn't work... maybe there are some living people who have bben shot that wouldn't have been shot, or the likelihood greatly reduced... or rape victims, or...

I don't think voting new people into office will work... I mean who is going to introduce a bill to repeal 922(o)? And who is going to vote for it? And who is going to allow someone to slip it into a must-pass bill in the middle of the night?

:fire:
 
Ah, perhaps a bit of information is in order. Amongst other things the Supreme Court exists to unify opinion when there is disagreement amongst the lower courts. Since we have several circuit courts saying one thing, and several others saying something else, eventually the Supreme Court was going to have to get involved to resolve the contradictions and unify the law.

The only surprise anyone on that level is facing is that they were able to put RKBA hearings off for so long.
They have been able to put it off because there has never been any disagreement among the circuits. Even the 5th circuit accepted the collective right in the past.

I just find it funny that this is so obviously a test case. The constitution restricts federal courts to trying cases and controversies, and not just theoretical issues. Here, Congress has the ability and power to fix this problem, but is not doing so just so they can force the courts to rule. The NRA deliberately pulled back on the "DC Personal Protection Act," which obviously would have passed easily, when they decided to quit trying to scuttle this case. That would have ended the circuit split, because Heller would have been moot and the 5th circuit, although it has held that the the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, has not struck down any laws. The Supreme Court does not always jump into the fray when their is a circuit split anyway; there are some circuit splits that are allowed to languish for years before the the Supreme Court decides to resolve it.

For them to take such a staged case, some of the justices are obviously aching to rule on this issue.
 
I'm confused ... Congress considered striking down the DC laws but the legislation failed the Senate ... now there is an effort to get the SCOTUS to strike down the DC laws, and the Senate supports the effort? If both houses are opposed to the DC gun laws, then it seems to me that it would be proper for them to strike down the laws, and there is really no need for the SCOTUS to reconstruct the Second Amendment over this.
 
It's incredible that Congress is deferring to the Court to make law. They could as easily have passed a measure to make the case moot, although perhaps needing to override a veto. I think they should still follow up and pass a bill, as has been attempted before.
 
You know one of the best parts of this whole thing is that -right now- the DC gun ban has been ruled illegal...but Fenty is continuing enforcement of the law.

Wonder how many lawsuits THAT will lead to in the end.
 
Who were the signers? If there are 55 of them, then we have some Democrats who supported us, and we need to write them letters of thanks.

You are correct.9 Democratic Senators and 68 Dem Congressmen/women signed on.
I'll try to find the names of these intelligent folks.
 
It's incredible that Congress is deferring to the Court to make law. They could as easily have passed a measure to make the case moot, although perhaps needing to override a veto. I think they should still follow up and pass a bill, as has been attempted before.

It's not so much that Congress is deferrring to The Court to "make law." I see it ias wanting The Court to strike down an unconstitutional law. There is a big difference there, to me.

If Congress acted on its own, some future Congress could undo their action. If the law is ruled unconstitutional, it's dead and buried.
 
Awesome woman. She may have been misquoted. I hope I get the chance to help elect her govenor.

She is a great Senator, a fine Texas Lady, graduate of UT Austin. Her ancestry is traced back to the Texas revolution. I believe one of her ancestors fought at San Jacinto.

The ONLY thing she needs to change is her support for SHAMNESTY!

Anygunanywhere
 
ZeSpectre said:
You know one of the best parts of this whole thing is that -right now- the DC gun ban has been ruled illegal...but Fenty is continuing enforcement of the law.

Wonder how many lawsuits THAT will lead to in the end.

Didn't they get a court order saying they could continue to enforce until the appeal is settled?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top