Gun Battle at the White House

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Interesting Column in Today's Washington Post regarding the conflict regarding within the administration regarding guns and the Heller case before the Supreme Court

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page A17
Washington Post

In preparation for oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration's stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President Bush.

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court's affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency.

Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights, which enjoy much wider agreement than do opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Promises in two presidential campaigns are being abandoned, and Bush finds himself to the left of even Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The 1976 D.C. statute prohibiting ownership of all functional firearms was called unconstitutional a year ago in an opinion by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for 22 years. It was assumed that Bush would fight Mayor Adrian Fenty's appeal.

The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031203396.html
(Sometimes the links to Post articles do not work unless you are registered. If not, search for guns and/or Novak)

The most remarkable thing about the column is the suggestion that Clements filed his ruling to ADVERT what he and the administration saw as a far bigger and greater threat to gun owners by having a too broad of a ruling if the court ruled in favor of DC, which they felt might very well happen. The gun lobby on this board has condemned the Bush administration. The most ironic thing is that the Bush administration might just save gun owners from having an 'adverse' ruling.

Personally, my favorite part of this whole debate is the notion that Cheney opposes DC's position as his role as "President" of the Senate and supports DC's position as part of the Bush administration. No wonder he can't shoot straight.

[tularetom]

1. It's much simpler than that

The bush administration doesn't mind if citizens own guns. They just prefer that minority citizens (like those who live in DC) not own them.

If they could find a way to keep firearms out of the hands of Democrats they'd support that as well.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

3. No Foundation to Support Your Claim

I suspect what's really racist is to the notion that you and Bush know what's better for minorities in Washington, DC than the minority general population who elected a minority city council and a minority mayor.

But heh, if that's the best argument you can make, let me go on record as saying the minority citizens in DC also don't mind you owning guns.... so long as they are unassembled.

[Tejas]

15. "no foundation" meet "preposterous"

"let me go on record as saying the minority citizens in DC also don't mind you owning guns.... so long as they are unassembled."


Seriously, do you work for the MSM? Feel free to show any relevant data whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claim. Fenty might be in your corner, but that's about it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Meet DC

Do you write: 'Seriously, do you work for the MSM? Feel free to show any relevant data whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claim. Fenty might be in your corner, but that's about it.'

Like you know anything about DC or minorities in DC.

Do your own research. You're welcome to move to my neighborhood.

[Tejas]

28. You yourself have posted to the contrary many times = evasion n/t

[SteveM]

17. I recommend for a run-down of gun-control's racist legacy:

<www.georgiacarry.org> wherein you will find a link to its Heller brief.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Georgia's Legacy on Race

You write 'I recommend for a run-down of gun-control's racist legacy: <www.georgiacarry.org > wherein you will find a link to its Heller brief.'

I'm going to go with the Jan 11 2008 brief amicus curiae filed by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc on January 11, 2008 in support of DC's position.

Something tells me their legacy on the social justice issues of race trumps 'Georgia Carry' legacy on race any day of the week. Georgia's legacy on race is well documented and so is the NAACP's.

I suspect what's really racist is to the notion that you and Bush know what's better for minorities in Washington, DC than the minority general population who elected a minority city council and a minority mayor.

[gorfle]

37. Oh goody...

let me go on record as saying the minority citizens in DC also don't mind you owning guns.... so long as they are unassembled.

LOL. If you ever need one in a hurry, I guess you can always through the pieces at your assailant. :)

[tularetom]

7. Did you read my fucking post?

Where the fuck did I say I agreed with what bush is advocating? He supports the DC ban on gun ownership. I do not. It's none of bush's goddamned business if the citizens of DC opt to ban firearms. Or mine either. I just find it strange that in this one instance he supports a law that would deprive a whole jurisdiction's rights under a constitutional amendment. If the citizens of oh let's say Texas enacted a ban on guns do you think he would tak the same approach.

I do not support the decision of the DC government. But I don't live there. But i'd be pissed if my local government passed a law that violated any of my constitutional rights. If you aren't hey that's OK.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Did You Read the Brief?

You write: 'He supports the DC ban on gun ownership.'

Actually, NO he doesn't. If you read the Justice Department's brief (which by the way is not the White House brief), you would clearly see that the Justice Department disagrees with DC's ban. Not only that, the Justice Department says that any legislation involving any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights (ie speech, religion, guns, etc.) must meet a critical threshold not demonstrated by DC. The Justice Department's 'beef' is that the lower court ruling is so broad that it doesn't acknowledge ANY threshold is required. It is also widely expected that the White House will have a separate brief filed the day of the hearing.

You cannot yell fire in a theater when there is no fire.
You cannot be a church and have a tax exempt certificate while funding or endorsing a political candidate.

Justice department's position is clear: the lower court ruling was so broad that in fact it does not recognize ANY state interest, which has NEVER been ruled before regarding ANY bill of rights issues or cases. The fact that you clearly have no idea what either the issues are or what the case involves or what the Justice department's position is or for that matter how laws are enacted in DC tells me you need to read up on them before challenging me on any of them.

Regarding DC, you are right. You don't live here. I suspect you don't know a thing about gun violence in our city. And I know you know nothing about how laws are enacted here.

As for your 'f*cking" post, I'll leave you to describe it as that. I'd merely ask have you read the brief?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Bush and You

You asked 'Where the fuck did I say I agreed with what Bush is advocating?"

Where the fuck did I say you do?

Fuck has a nice sound to it, but let's hope you have more to offer than that.

This is what I said: 'I suspect what's really racist is to the notion that you and Bush know what's better for minorities in Washington, DC than the minority general population who elected a minority city council and a minority mayor.'

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. So you agree with Bush?

The pro-gun crowd on here has been talking about this very issue for months, now you post a story and confirm what they have been saying. I guess the gun nuts are right sometimes.

David

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. Huh?

I've long argued way prior to this article that I thought the Supreme Court will and should send the case back to the lower court for a much narrower ruling.

I'm not sure where you have been, since I don't recall seeing your name in the discussion.

This much is certain: The Court could simply rule that DC is unique and not a state. They could rule that Congress and the President had every opportunity to overrule the DC law and did not. There are a whole bunch of things they could do, not to mention the fact that the lower court ruling has been widely criticized by folks on both sides as 'putting too much on the table'.

[EricTeri]

5. And monkeys COULD fly outa my butt

That of course is about as likely as Fenty's fantasy (and apparently yours as well) that D.C. not being an actual state somehow exempts it from having to obey the parts of the Constitution it doesn't like.

The court will not rule that D.C. isn't restricted by the 2nd Amendment since it isn't a state. The mere fact that the USSC is even hearing the case rules that whole line of reasoning out.

That Congress COULD have overruled the law but didn't is not a ruling, but merely an observation. That they did not does not give D.C. the magical authority to somehow continue violating rights. The President - as pointed out to you countless times before - does not make law and cannot simply get rid of one if he doesn't like it. He enforces existing law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Missing the Point

Congress and the President could have thrown out DC's law, which they could never do for a single state.

They didn't making the claim by either that it was 'unconstitutional' sound disingenuous.

[L1A1Rocker]

10. And as I've told you many, many times

SCOTUS WOULD have sent it back already if they wanted to. SCOTUS wants to hear this case and will. Hell, SCOTUS even took the unusual step in crafting their own question to answer in the case.

SCOTUS has only one case scheduled for the 18th. Another unusual move. Time to face reality FTGF, SCOTUS wants this case.

[L1A1Rocker]

18. No response FTGF? I challenge you to try.

[L1A1Rocker]

38. FTGF concedes to ME!!1

By not taking up my challenge.

[Herman74]

11. "Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President Bush."

The right, arising from the 2nd Amendment, for depraved individuals to wreak murderous destruction:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. Self Deleted

misread your post.

sorry

[L1A1Rocker]

13. Sorry, I missed that quote in the Constitution.

The right, arising from the 2nd Amendment, for depraved individuals to wreak murderous destruction:


Can you please point to me where the "depraved individuals to wreak murderous destruction:" exists? Kind of stupid since murder is illegal. Kinda stupid since depraved individuals get locked up. Kinda stupid since, oh Hell, that was just plain stupid.

[L1A1Rocker]

19. Still waiting.

[L1A1Rocker]

39. Herman74 fails to site his assertion. Wonder why?

[Herman74]

20. Change the word, "right," to "capacity," and it will all become clear to you.

And to a depraved individual, the distinction between "right," and "capacity," means nothing at all.

[L1A1Rocker]

21. Despite your evasion, I'm STILL waiting. Doubt you can though.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Bravo....... and

........ well said.

[Herman74]

36. Thanks, and you seem to write well too. n/t

[krispos42]

14. Okay, I'm confused now

The DoJ is against the DC gun ban?

The White House is for the DC gun ban?

???

[Tejas]

16. makes two of us

In before the usual non-answer by FTGFN ie: "thank you for proving my point".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. See Post 25

.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Let Me Try to Clarify

Read the original link. It's not as simple as either a yes or a no despite the claims of both sides.

DoJ position is that ANY law that impacts ANY Bill of Rights protection must meet special scrutiny. Their position, for example and to oversimplify, is that you cannot put restrictions on speech unless there is an overwhelming state interest (ie yelling fire is against the law in a theater where there is no fire). The DoJ strongly supports the Second Amendment and the 'individual' right to own guns (as oppose to the interpretation of a 'collective militia right'.) Having said that, the DoJ says the lower courts ruling is SO broad that it could potentially throw out ALL gun laws, because it seems to support the argument that 'make no law' means make no law. Knowing that such a ruling is very unlikely based on precedent and constitutional law that supports putting restrictions on rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights based on a compelling higher state threshold that needs to be meet, it meant the very real prospect based on the merits of the arguments that DC might actually flat out win, which the DoJ feared because it would allow far more draconian measures than DC's law against gun owners. So they took this 'pre-ememptive' strike to send the case back to the lower court because of it's too broad of a ruling.

Now the White House was stunned at the DoJ's position, because they simply wanted the lower court ruling upheld without looking at or considering the arguments of both sides. Basically, they didn't want to acknowledge that the lower court (taking away the merits of their position) was poorly written and their arguments were way too broad.

Most political observers note that when it first came out, the White House was somewhat confused and divided on Justice's position. Initially they were not happy, most commentators in the press, speculate (yes just speculate) that they did not want to intervene with Justice's position because of all the turmoil and charges of intervening and micro-managing DoJ for political reasons rather than for law enforcement.

[Tejas]

27. "It's not as simple as either a yes or a no" - yes it is, read your own post for ralphsake n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Glad to Help You Understand

Glad I was able to clarify for you.

But the original poster asked TWO questions.

Which one were you answering?

LOL

[Tejas]

31. typical non-answer - n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. Use Post 27 as the Definition

.

[krispos42]

30. Thank you

Although even if it could "potentially" throw out many gun laws, there would have to be lawsuits filed in all of the individual states and federal court to challened the existing laws based on the new court ruling. And those would take years, allowing legislators plenty of time to re-vamp their laws.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. True...

You are correct. There would have been a slew of gun litigation from both sides for a variety of reasons.

On another note, I should have also said that an adverse ruling for gun advocates based on a very poorly worded and thought out lower court ruling (without regard to the merits) would have also validated the worse fears of gun proponents if DC's law is upheld. DoJ is trying to prevent that from happening and even though they are widely perceived as not supporting gun rights, they are being very smart (in my opinion) and strategic in their arguments.

[krispos42]

34. There was an interesting legal analysis of this by Don Kates...

in a recent edition of "Handguns" magazine. Unfortuantely, despite spending the last half hour searching the series of tubes, I was unable to find an on-line version.

But a couple of select quotes from the article...

Much of the sentiment for bringing a Second Amendment case came from legally unsophisticated people. They thought: if only we can get to the Supreme Court and win, anti-gun laws would magically disappear.

Even if we get a hearing in Parker, and if we win, it would just be the opening round in decades of litigation that would be needed to fully establish the right of law-abiding responsible adults to own guns.

And, in those cases, many lesser kinds of controls would be upheld. Laws that would most probably be held valid include registration requirements (in various colonies and early states every household was required to own a gun and show it to public officers - there was no idea of gun ownership being private) and concealed carry bans (there is considerable authority that the right to "bear arms" means carrying then openly, not concealed.

Handguns magazine, February/March 2008, "Supreme Court Case On the Right to Bear Arms" by Don B. Kates, pp. 22-23

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Agree Completely

I think the Court, who with few exceptions, takes a very narrow view of any issue. This particular case has both sides thinking there is going to be this huge, broad, sweeping ruling.

I may be wrong, but I think it's far more likely the case will go back to the lower court. It'll probably be a 'pro-gun' ruling, but it'll be narrow in scope (in my opinion). I thought that before the DoJ brief and now I definitely think there is a reasonable case to be made for that.