posted
NEWS RELEASE Second Amendment Foundation 12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org SAF SAYS D.C. RESIDENTIAL GUN SEARCH AN EXERCISE IN ‘POLICE STATE DEMAGOGUERY’ For Immediate Release: 3/13/2008 BELLEVUE, WA – A plan to conduct “consent searches” for guns in District of Columbia residences is “an outrageous exercise of police state demagoguery,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb condemned the plan as “a public relations effort designed to influence, through crass dramatics, Tuesday’s scheduled oral arguments on the constitutionality of the District’s handgun ban before the Supreme Court.”
“Launching this effort,” he stated, “on the eve of Supreme Court arguments over the city’s horribly failed handgun ban underscores the Draconian mentality that lies at the root of gun laws like the District handgun ban. Arthur B. Spitzer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, D.C. was right when he told the Washington Post that this ‘sends a message to the public that the police ought to be able to search your house anytime for any reason’.”
Spitzer suggested that citizens will be intimidated into allowing police into their homes without warrant. He said it “cheapens civil liberties and privacy for everyone.” District resident Ronald Hampton, executive director of the National Black Police Association, told the newspaper that he would not allow his home to be searched.
“How dare Mayor Adrian Fenty and Police Chief Cathy Lanier launch this program within days of oral arguments challenging a 31-year-old extremist gun law that has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” he continued. “District citizens, as well as members of Congress, should be furious.
“Calling this project the ‘Safe Homes Initiative’ is an insult to our intelligence,” Gottlieb stated. “If District residents allow this to happen, no home will be safe from warrantless fishing expeditions by police, because that’s exactly what this thinly-disguised program is really all about. We think Congress should step in immediately and stop this from happening.
“Isn’t it ironic that the District heads to the Supreme Court next week in an effort to destroy one-tenth of the Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb concluded, “while they prepare to launch the kind of police state exercise the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
-END-
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The D.C. gun ban IS a failed initiative. Just look at all the gang violence, crack, etc in that area. Even IF a gun ban worked which it has been proven GLOBALLY it doesnt then they will just resort to something else....knives, etc
It isnt the guns that are the problem its the lifestyle, the people, the mentality, the background, etc.
San Fransico, LA, Chicago, D.C.....big liberal anti gun cities still rubbin their noggin wondering why strict gun laws have no effect on crime.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
NEWS RELEASE Second Amendment Foundation 12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org SAF FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN D.C. GUN BAN CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT For Immediate Release: 2/13/2008 BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in District of Columbia v Heller, the appeal of the landmark case that overturned the district’s handgun ban on the grounds that it unconstitutionally violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Written by attorney Nelson Lund at the George Mason University School of Law, the brief has already earned praise of veteran Second Amendment authority David Kopel, who noted in remarks on a popular Second Amendment website, “If you want to read a model Supreme Court brief, this is the brief to read.”
In the brief, Lund notes that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would remain even if the militia were disbanded.
“Our 48-page brief is tightly written, and it refutes the contentions by anti-gunners that the Second Amendment only protects some right of the states to maintain militias,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “The brief, which can be read on our website at www.saf.org, gets right to the heart of this case. We also note that the opposition arguments are absurd, and explain why.”
SAF’s brief further reminds the court that “In liberal theory, the most fundamental of all rights is the right of self defense.” It also notes that ‘the people’ referred to in the Second Amendment “has always been a much larger body of individuals than the militia.”
“Congress cannot abolish this constitutional right of the people by abolishing the militia,” notes Lund in the brief. “Neither can the right be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain.”
“While anti-gun extremists are beating drums about the downfall of civilization if the high court upholds the individual right,” Gottlieb stated, “we believe that the time has come for the Second Amendment to take its place as the Constitution’s insurance policy against tyranny and as our guardian against unjust laws that leave us defenseless against a growing criminal element.”
The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
-END-
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright....alright....you boys along with Glass have worn me down.
Guns are a symptom, not the problem.
I still don't like exotics though and still think all guns should be treated in the same way as vehicles. (i.e. tabs and registration)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DC Steps Up Campaign Against Gun Violence March 17, 2008
A pivotal Second Amendment case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow when its members hear oral arguments in District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller, which challenges the District of Columbia's handgun ban. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier aren't waiting for the decision, however -- on March 12, they started a three-phased public safety initiative for the spring and summer months. Phase Two, the Safe Homes Initiative, starts March 24. It asks parents and guardians to admit foot patrol police officers into their homes to search for weapons without risk of an arrest. If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if not found to be linked to any other crime.
and if they are? what then?
arrests will be made? you bet they will.
there is only one legal way to do this. that is to request at random (like on the news) that people that want their homes searched can call and ask for it..
parents of kids that are AFRAID of their kids can do it, and there will be arrests made..
this is beginning to remind me of the rise of the Third Reich...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to Story - Help Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights By Warren Richey Tue Mar 18, 4:00 AM ET
The Second Amendment guarantees a constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." What that means exactly has been a source of intense debate that stretches back to America's founding.
Some legal scholars believe the amendment protects a right to keep and bear only those firearms that are necessary for ongoing service in a state militia. Other equally distinguished scholars hold the view that the amendment guarantees individual Americans the right to possess and use firearms, even when the guns are not related to service in a militia.
The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a potential landmark case that could settle the question once and for all.
The high court last addressed the issue almost 70 years ago in a case called US v. Miller. But that decision left the debate unresolved.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has been marked by a surprising lack of clear and decisive action on the Second Amendment. As a result, many of the legal briefs in the current case instead of emphasizing prior decisions of the high court offer competing versions of American history, focusing on the debates, writings, and experiences of the nation's founding era.
An unprecedented caseIt presents what Georgetown University Law Center Professor Randy Barnett calls a "clean case."
"There is really no precedent standing in the way of the court enforcing the original meaning of this provision," Professor Barnett told reporters recently. "That's what makes this a historic case. That's what makes it a case that none of us … have probably witnessed in our lifetime and may never witness again."
But that's also what makes it unpredictable, according to other analysts.
"We have no track record on any of this," says John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who embraces the militia-service view.
The justices must decide what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote and approved these words: "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."
In addition to settling a historic debate, how the high court reads those words will hold important implications for the constitutionality of gun control measures across the US. It could also inject the fiery issue of guns into the 2008 campaigns for president and Congress.
The debate over gun rights and gun-control exists at a major fault line in American political culture. One side views guns as a threat to public safety; the other views them as a protection of personal safety and national liberty.
Specifically at issue before the court in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) is the constitutionality of a ban on handguns and other gun-control measures enacted 32 years ago in Washington, D.C.
Dick Anthony Heller, a special police officer at the Federal Judicial Center, wanted to keep a handgun in his Washington home for self-defense. But the city government refused to issue him a permit, citing the city's stringent gun laws.
Mr. Heller sued in early 2003, charging that the handgun ban and other measures violated his Second Amendment right.
A federal judge threw the case out in March 2004, ruling that since Heller was not a member of a militia he had no constitutional right to firearms. But that judgment was reversed 2 to 1 last year by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The appeals court found that the right to arms established in the Second Amendment is broader than a narrow link to a militia.
In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the city argue that the Second Amendment protects only militia-related firearms rights, not the personal use and possession of firearms. The city's lawyers say the first clause of the amendment limits the scope of the entire amendment.
Lawyers for Heller disagree. They characterize the amendment's first clause as a preamble to the rights-securing language in the second clause. "The preamble cannot contradict or render meaningless the operative text," writes Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura, in his brief to the court.
In the Constitution, when the framers refer to "the people," they are discussing individual rights, Mr. Gura says. By conferring a right to "keep" arms, the people thereby enjoy a right to have arms in their homes and use them for personal protection, he says.
Lawyers for the District of Columbia say the Second Amendment was not written to create an armed populace. It was designed to address concerns about national power to arm – or disarm – the state militias. "The amendment prevents Congress from interfering with the right of the people of each state to arm a well-regulated militia composed not of professional soldiers, but of the people themselves," writes Todd Kim, solicitor general of the District of Columbia, in his brief to the court.
Other gun laws may be affectedDistrict of Columbia v. Heller requires the high court to confront a series of questions. First, what kind of right does the Second Amendment secure, a collective, militia-related right or an individual right?
Second, if it secures an individual right, is that right violated by a handgun ban and other strict gun-control measures such as those enacted in Washington?
To answer the latter question the high court would have to decide what level of constitutional scrutiny to apply to the city's gun-control laws. Will they use the strict scrutiny applied to protect the free speech rights of the First Amendment and other fundamental rights? Or will they use the lower level of scrutiny generally applied against government regulations?
This is the aspect of the case that could jeopardize gun-control measures in other parts of the country.
Some analysts say that even if a majority of justices rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, their ruling will not necessarily undercut most existing gun-control laws.
A similar handgun ban in Chicago would probably be unconstitutional, they say, but widely adopted gun-control measures like background checks and machine gun restrictions would most likely survive.
"The issues in this case are not about eliminating all reasonable restrictions on firearms," says Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who authored a friend of the court brief on behalf of Texas and 30 other states urging the high court to strike down the handgun ban.
"Instead, they are about does the Second Amendment protect a real right," he says. A decision in the case is expected by late June.
posted
check out this article about the lawyer bringing the suit against DC: Lawyer in D.C. Gun Case Doesn't Own One
By STEPHEN MANNING – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.
But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.
Why all the effort? Levy says he is driven to defend constitutional rights he believes are being trampled by the District of Columbia's strict ban on private ownership of handguns.
"I believe in the written Constitution and that the text ought to be interpreted the way it was meant to be," Levy said.
do you beleive we all should have a set of rules to live by that we agree on, and are enforced EQUALLY in all cases or not?
i'm sick of all these revisionist "interpretations". if you want to pass gun laws like this then change the constitution the LEGAL way... if you can? then it'll be the law, but the ammendment won't be changed legally any time soon, it does not have nearly enough support.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to Story - Help Justices agree on right to own guns By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 18, 7:19 PM ET
Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.
Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.
The justices dug deeply into arguments on one of the Constitution's most hotly debated provisions as demonstrators shouted slogans outside. Guns are an American right, argued one side. "Guns kill," responded the other.
Inside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia.
Several justices were openly skeptical that the District of Columbia's 32-year-old handgun ban, perhaps the strictest in the nation, could survive under that reading of the Constitution.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.
Walter Dellinger, representing the district, replied that Washington residents could own rifles and shotguns and could use them for protection at home.
"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous," Dellinger said.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.
Alan Gura, representing a Washington resident who challenged ban, said, "It's unreasonable and it fails any standard of review."
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. 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."
The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.
"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he hoped the court would leave the ban in place and not vote for a compromise that would, for example, allow handguns in homes but not in public places. "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime. And that is why we stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," the mayor said after attending the arguments.
A decision that defines the amendment's meaning would be significant by itself. But the court also has to decide whether Washington's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
The justices have many options, including upholding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should say that governments may impose reasonable restrictions, including federal laws that ban certain types of weapons.
Clement wants the justices to order the appeals court to re-evaluate the Washington law. He did not take a position on it.
This issue has caused division within the administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the official position at the court.
In addition to the handgun ban, Washington also has a trigger lock requirement for other guns that raised some concerns Tuesday.
"When you hear somebody crawling in your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?" Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that trigger locks might be reasonable.
"There is always a risk that the children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.
On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter.
Dellinger said he opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in daylight.
While the arguments raged inside, dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorists buy guns."
Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."
The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."
I agree! So, the police, FBI, secret service, homeland security, congressional security personnel and other government officials certainly don't need handguns in the "purely urban environment of the District of Columbia". After all, since there is a longstanding ban on handguns, clearly the bad guys don't have handguns!
posted
Does that mean that in rural areas handguns have a more legitimate use than in urban areas? Yah, That's a BS argument.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does that mean that in rural areas handguns have a more legitimate use than in urban areas?
Yes, honest citizens in safer rural areas need handguns more than honest citizens in drug infested, crime ridden areas of the country's most dangerous cities! Or is that that things are safer in rural areas because honest citizens are carrying guns and criminals know that they are risking their lives when they try to perpetrate crimes?
I know one thing for sure - honest citizens in New Orleans needed handguns to protect themselves from people who began acting like animals after Katrina almost from day one!!!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Does that mean that in rural areas handguns have a more legitimate use than in urban areas? Yah, That's a BS argument.
one could argue that the police are farther away in rural areas... response times are slower, making rural dwellers more vulnerable to theives.
however, theives know that in a rural area they are most likely to, well to meet Mr. Colt instead of Wimpy.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I'm a fan of Mr. Orange in a sock.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally am a fan of Browning,Colt(sob),and mister remington 12GA.3" mag
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It must be difficult to conceal a 12 ga. shotgun as you walk down the street. Trenchcoat during the summer?
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
im curious, is there ANY place that has banned guns and not seen an increase in crime?
UK, australia, jamaica, DC.. all worse now than before.
Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:im curious, is there ANY place that has banned guns and not seen an increase in crime?
Makes me wonder how those on the wacko left can cling to their anti-gun, pro-crime stance!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
