Politics - Texas AG files Heller amicus for 31 states

Texican · Post by **Texican** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:29 am

Things are ramping up for the March SCOTUS review. Want to know where your state stands? (We can guess on NJ, CA, and MA...)

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/rele ... =1&id=2367

don Tomás · Post by **don Tomás** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:56 pm

[quote]Attorney General Abbott and the other state attorneys general argue that â€œbecause the Second Amendmentâ€™s text recognizes a â€˜right,â€™ not a â€˜power,â€™ and guarantees that right to â€˜the peopleâ€™ and not â€˜the States,â€™ it necessarily secures an individual right to keep and bear arms.â€

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:19 pm

I'm proud to say WA's Rob McKenna signed us on.....The only left coast state to do so. Our constitution spells out the individual right to bear arms and cities and counties cannot change that with stricter laws (I think).

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:22 pm

I don't understand how people keep missing the magic words:

...some firearms regulations are permissible....

The primary issue IS NOT whether the SCOTUS recognizes those words that are plainly stated in the text of the 2nd Amendment, the issue is whether these few new words are accepted into Constitutional law, thereby granting Congress a de facto authorization to define and INFRINGE on our rights.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:28 pm

FWiedner wrote:I don't understand how people keep missing the magic words:

...some firearms regulations are permissible....
The primary issue IS NOTwhether the SCOTUS recognizes those words that are plainly stated in the text of the 2nd Amendment, the issue is whether these few words or words meaning essentially the same thing are accepted into Constitutional law, thereby granting Congress a de facto authorization to define and INFRINGE on our rights.

This brief from the states is not pro-gun, it is pro-gun control.

I totally cede your point, but if you could click your heels together three times and kiss your elbow and make a wish, you will not get any better than that. Get on board and sweat the small stuff later.....this individual right point is the focus as of now; If Libs appoint the next two or three SCOTUS judges, we will be screwed forever.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:28 pm

Blaine, perhaps it's just my opinion, but a right that is metered out according to some government entity's tolerance of what is "permissible" IS NOT A RIGHT.

If the court determines that the 2nd Amendment is an accorded right that any government yo-yo has the authority to regulate according to their passing whimsey, what has been gained by this determination of "individual" right?

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:36 pm

FWiedner wrote:Blaine, perhaps it's just my opinion, but a right that is metered out according to some government entity's tolerance of what is "permissible" IS NOT A RIGHT.

If the court determines that the 2nd Amendment is an accorded right that any government yo-yo has the authority to regulate according to their passing whimsey, what has been gained by this determination of "individual" right?

Again, I cede to your position. Are you willing to give full rights to violent felons and preditors? The worry, of course, is that when the camel's nose is under the tent flap, "they" will go much further than intended.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:09 pm

Are you willing to give full rights to violent felons and preditors?

No.

I am willing to recognize that as free men they have the same rights that I do, and of their own accord.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:15 pm

FWiedner wrote:
Are you willing to give full rights to violent felons and preditors?
No.

I am willing to recognize that as free men they have the same rights that I do, and of their own accord.

If they have been released by the System, perhaps I agree. We both know, however, that most felons and perverts do not change their stripes. In olden days, they had a habit of going missing..... Now, we have to put up with them. I'd just as soon not have them able to buy arms....but, and I'm at a loss, they will find one if they want one.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:01 am

SC signed on!

Texican · Post by **Texican** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:45 pm

FWiedner wrote: The primary issue IS NOT whether the SCOTUS recognizes those words that are plainly stated in the text of the 2nd Amendment, the issue is whether these few new words are accepted into Constitutional law, thereby granting Congress a de facto authorization to define and INFRINGE on our rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the Heller case will only answer the question of whether DC residents will be able to keep firearms in their homes for personal use. It is narrowly worded to a yes or no question.

While, the lower court's interpretation of DC's complete ban is that it does infringe on an individual right and thus is unconstitutional, if the SCOTUS allows the lower court's decision to stand it will by proxy 'reaffirm' the individual RKBA. It's a good first step towards solidifying 2A protections. But it will be a small step and more is required.

With the Dems and Gang of 14 have effectively blocked the appointment of many, many judges and thus created a backlog. The next President of US will have many more than the usual judicial appointments to make. That alone scares me. Especially when hearing those who (like Ann Coulter) espouse letting the Dems take this years election to 'teach the GOP leadership a lesson'. It's those judges that have yet to be appointed that will determine how this issue plays out over the next few decades.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:24 pm

Texican wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the Heller case will only answer the question of whether DC residents will be able to keep firearms in their homes for personal use. It is narrowly worded to a yes or no question.

DC residents can have firearms in their homes, but they cannot have handguns, and their long-arms must be disassembled and have trigger locks and secure storage.

The question before the court is whether or not this is a de facto denial / infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by requiring that those arms that are available be kept immediately inaccessable and unusable.

Texican · Post by **Texican** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:12 am

FWiedner wrote:
Texican wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the Heller case will only answer the question of whether DC residents will be able to keep firearms in their homes for personal use. It is narrowly worded to a yes or no question.
DC residents can have firearms in their homes, but they cannot have handguns, and their long-arms must be disassembled and have trigger locks and secure storage.

The question before the court is whether or not this is a de facto denial / infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by requiring that those arms that are available be kept immediately inaccessable and unusable.

Correct. I should have said 'usable firearms for personal use.'

My point though was that even if this goes our way, we won't suddenly be able to get MG's by mail order. If we want to continue making headway we will still need to make a solid showing at the polls. Even if we have to hold our nose as we vote.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:01 am

My point though was that even if this goes our way, we won't suddenly be able to get MG's by mail order. If we want to continue making headway we will still need to make a solid showing at the polls. Even if we have to hold our nose as we vote.

I've been holding my nose for a while now. I don't like the choices we have, or the odds on the choices we DO have.

Teek