Congress Supports States Second Amendment Gun Rights

[wishin]

The following article was cut and pasted from the recent GunBroker e-newsletter. That in bold is my emphasis and is why I'm posting it. There are few people that are tougher on Congress than me. In this case, they deserve praise. If you're not on the GunBroker mailing list you won't have seen it unless it was in a different periodical.


SCOTUS to Determine Scope of Second Amendment

On Nov. 16, 2009, the NRA filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The McDonald case is one of several that were filed immediately after last year's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and invalidated Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession, as well as the city's ban on keeping loaded, operable firearms for self-defense in the home.

In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As the NRA argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Support for incorporation of the Second Amendment is very strong, and numerous additional briefs have recently been filed and signed by both federal and state officials.

Recently, an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief supporting the NRA's position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The amicus brief bears the signatures of a record 251 Members of Congress and 58 Senators the most signers of a congressional amicus brief in the history of the Supreme Court.
In addition to the federal brief, a large bipartisan group of state legislators and other elected officials from all 50 states, along with more than three-fourths of state attorney generals also filed amicus curiae briefs in the McDonald case this week. They, too, are supporting the NRA's position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[McBuck]

It must be noted that an Amicus Curaie, is simply a request or a show of support. The SCOTUS is under no obligation to read it ( or have read by their staff) I am sure that the signatures contained in this Amicus brief hold tremendous sway, but in the end it is to the discretion of the court as to whether or not the brief is taken into account. However, with this many electorates signatures, I am confident the court will consider it.

 

[gmark340]

Which two Senators missed the bus? Probably those from my home state of NJ. It's difficult to believe this many signed the amicus brief, given the goofy anti-gun legislation that keeps getting considered. On the other hand, most of it isn't passing so maybe the signatories are sincere.

 

[hvengel]

"Which two Senators"? 58 senators signed on. That means that 42 did not.

 

[danprkr]

It must be noted that an Amicus Curaie, is simply a request or a show of support. The SCOTUS is under no obligation to read it ( or have read by their staff) I am sure that the signatures contained in this Amicus brief hold tremendous sway, but in the end it is to the discretion of the court as to whether or not the brief is taken into account. However, with this many electorates signatures, I am confident the court will consider it.

Good point the SCOTUS is perfectly within its rights to not even look at it, and certainly isn't bound by it. But, I'd hope with so much support it might sway them somewhat to the right way of thinking.

 

[hvengel]

It should be noted that Heller has some language that appears to be pulled almost word for word from some of the Amicus Curaie briefs. So it appears that these are read and that these can and do influence the results. I think the justices understand that these are historic cases and the more incite/prospectives they have on this the better.

 

[Bobarino]

i don't necessarily think this is such a good thing. if i was an anti-gun representative, and had enough votes in both houses and an anti-gun president, sure i'd want to take the power to regulate firearms away from the states an set it squarely in my lap. then i could impose sweeping legislation and states couldn't do anything about at a state level. true, in light of Heller, it may get shot down in the SCOTUS but that will be years into the future. in the mean time, they have their (insert overly hyped and evil type of gun here) ban. and if it takes years to weave it's way through the courts, the SCOTUS may be sitting quite differently than it is today.

don't get me wrong, i don't think the states should have the ability to regulate firearms for the exact reasons that this case is being heard. 2A incorporated under the 14A. i just don't have enough faith in the federal gov't to act in the spirit of the law nor the intent or spirit of Heller and probably McDonald.

i can see the bill now:

Whereas: AR-15 and similar rifles exhibiting (blah blah blah) characteristics are hereby found to be "dangerous and unusual" weapons (per Heller)......

i'm sure you see where that's going.

just some food for thought.

 

[lloveless]

I don't understand this wording "the NRA's position that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." 2admendment incorporated Against? the states?
lloveless

 

[wishin]

This is an over simplification, but the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause has been used in the past to apply certain of the Bill of Rights to the states.

 

[DJ]

Republic v Democracy

I might add that the 14th was written for the Negro Population that was freeded as a result of the Civil War, A Supreme Court Case known as the "Slaughter House Cases". The case also discussed the proposition that the 14th afforded the Negro People the right to keep and bear. This matter should have already been concluded. Remember the Heller case was a 4-5 vote and we have a new Justice. How will she sway the Courrt....

The "incorporation" concept was to prevent states in which the Negro population were not considered citizens from being treated differently. Article IV has much stronger language and states that the states are to ensure a "Republican" form of government. This is in contradistinction to the "Democracy" animal that has been touted since Roosevelt. The Democracy that Roosevelt gave birth to in the New Deal is really Socialism, "a Rose by any other name...". Both jefferson and Jackson proposed a more Democratic approach to government but it was to establish a level playing field for people regardless of the economic condition. They wanted to prevent money interests from rolling over the less fortunate, not create an entitlement system rationalized to help the down trodden and bleed the country dry. They were trying to stop the formation of an "Elite" social order from ruling as a result of their economic status. Ooooppps!!!

The word democracy does not appear in the Constitution. With the present concept of "Democracy" being reinforced into the general understanding of the general population it will not be long before we loose all understanding of what the word truely meant. When the masses are conditioned to believe a lie they can thereby be swayed to "vote' on their error and vote over the fundamental liberty of us all, or so they are taught to believe. So the "Democracy" concept is spun to make it a tool of tyranny. This includes voting for gun control. Funny that the Minute Men that met the British on Concord Bridge were not preserving thier right to possess squrrel guns. I think that the magazine actually contained cannon and shot as well as large stores of powder. When you look at this historical truth and read the Heller Case, you can see that the Justices just curtailed the right to commonly owned firearms, not something you could resist an Army with. It was not so in 1775. No wonder they want lots of uneducated people with the right to vote and loads of entitlement programs.