Author Topic: DoJ on Heller...  (Read 2694 times)

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
DoJ on Heller...
« on: February 15, 2008, 10:24:22 AM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/EDITORIAL/749172469/1013
Quote
   According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.

    Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.

    That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.

    Rather than a foursquare pronouncement that the D.C. handgun ban is unreasonable by any standard, the Justice Department has essentially endorsed years of depositions and expert testimony, and a rerun before a less hospitable Supreme Court.

    In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if the D.C. ban can survive judicial scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would not.
more here:  http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/

If I'm understanding this right, the DoJ is suggesting an "out" for the SCOTUS, a course that could have Heller returned to a lower court...  Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2008, 01:25:19 PM »
Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?
====
its a good question.  I believe those appointees to the DoJ operate more or less in concert with whatever admin  appointed them.....

This is what living in a land with a consititution and laws is like.  Very very frustrating, but what is the alternative?

Hopefully the court will simply here the case and make a decision.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2008, 03:00:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
Does the DoJ follow Bush's orders or are they doing this on their own?
====
its a good question.  I believe those appointees to the DoJ operate more or less in concert with whatever admin  appointed them.....

This is what living in a land with a consititution and laws is like.  Very very frustrating, but what is the alternative?

Hopefully the court will simply here the case and make a decision.
I sure hope so...  I'm just confused by "the administration" giving them a way out of hearing the case.  Well, maybe not so confused as annoyed.  I'd expect this from a Dem controlled "administration", but for this one to suggest anything that would prevent the SCOTUS from hearing the only 2nd amendment case in forever is...  something else.  I don't know what it is.  It's depressing, that's for sure...  Maybe it's just further evidence that the 2 parties are basically the same.  Maybe it's just time for me to get apathetic about politics again, this isn't worth the stress!

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2008, 03:12:56 PM »
Hmmm.  I think this has to do with the republicans realizing what the different SC rulings would mean.  A SC ruling to call the DC Handgun ban illegal would apply to ALL federal restrictions, regardless of weapon types.


Suddenly you analyze this from the perspective of a government, and the citizens are getting bigger guns with which to overthrow you.  Very scary indeed.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13919
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2008, 03:14:52 PM »
The SCOTUS does not need "a way out" of hearing the case. If that were their intent they would never have decided to hear it in the first place.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2008, 03:22:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
The SCOTUS does not need "a way out" of hearing the case. If that were their intent they would never have decided to hear it in the first place.
I agree, hence my confusion/annoyance...  Why does the DoJ need to jump in and urge that "Heller be returned to the lower courts...", considering that they've already agreed to hear the case?  If the SCOTUS agrees to hear a case, and the DoJ subsequently offers an alternative, isn't that suggesting a way out?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 03:24:47 PM by bsdaddict »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2008, 03:30:23 PM »
About what one would expect from the DOJ/BATF. Like the brief you would get from the IRS if the Constitutionality of tax law was being considered.

One imagines that Bush could have turned the screws, but then he is no real friend of the 2nd or most of the rest of the BOR for that matter. They did at least say it was an individual right :)

Charon

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13919
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2008, 03:32:45 PM »
Since they have already agreed to hear the case it's like locking the barn door after the horse is gone. As I said, the SCOTUS does not need a way out and trying to provide one is silly at best for an interested party to the case. I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the case.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6364
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2008, 03:42:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bsdaddict
I sure hope so...  I'm just confused by "the administration" giving them a way out of hearing the case.  Well, maybe not so confused as annoyed.  I'd expect this from a Dem controlled "administration", but for this one to suggest anything that would prevent the SCOTUS from hearing the only 2nd amendment case in forever is...  something else.  I don't know what it is.  It's depressing, that's for sure...  Maybe it's just further evidence that the 2 parties are basically the same.


Yep, Don't feel like I have a dog in the fight anymore.

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2008, 04:15:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Since they have already agreed to hear the case it's like locking the barn door after the horse is gone. As I said, the SCOTUS does not need a way out and trying to provide one is silly at best for an interested party to the case. I think you are drawing a conclusion that is not necessarily the case.


They have said it, but are they bound to it?  I don't remember hearing anything other then them saying they wanted to do it.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13919
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2008, 05:39:21 PM »
They are already accepting briefs IIRC.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2008, 06:52:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
They are already accepting briefs IIRC.


Yep and I bet we get a few more before March 18

Amicus briefs Heller Vs DC
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/3mer/1ami/2007-0290.mer.ami.pdf

Brief for Violence Policy Center and the Police Chiefs for the Cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Major American Cities, the United State Conference of Mayors and Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler, as in Support of Petitoner
Brief for American Public Health Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Trauma Society, and American Association of Suicidology in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials in Support of Petitoner
Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in Support of Petitioner(reprint)
Brief for DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, D.C. Chamber of Commerce, D.C. for Democracy, D.C. League of Women Voters, Federal City Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Childrens Defense Fund, Women Against Gun Violence, and Youth Alive! in Support of Petitioner
Brief for District Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (revised)
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Support of Petitioners
Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Black Police Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, School Safety Advocacy Council, and the Police Executive Research Forum in Support of Petitioner
Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph. D, Richard W. Bailey, Ph. D, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the the American Jewish Committee et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Legislative Exchange in Support of Respondent
Brief for GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, National Council for Investigationand Security Services, Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., DBA Ohio Association of Security and Investigation Services (OASIS), Michigan Council of Private Investigators, Indiana Association of Professional Investigators, and Kentucky Professional Investigators Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent
Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Alaska Outdoor Council, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, SITKA Sportsman's Association, the Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club, the Juneau Gun Club, and Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy, Lieutenant General Tom Fields, Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, General Ronald H. Griffith, General William H. Hartzog, Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite, Major General John. G. Meyer, Jr., Honorable Joe R. Reeder, Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner, General John Tilelli, and The American Hunters and Shooters Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Libertarian National Committee in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for 55 Members of the United States Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate, and 250 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Respondent
Brief for 126 Women State Legislatures and Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Virginia1774.org in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for Paragon Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in Support of Respondent
Brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, the National Police Defense Foundation, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent(reprint)
Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washignton, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in Support of Respondent
Brief for Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Right-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania Joseph B. Scarnati, III in Support of Respondent
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent
Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of California, Inc., the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for State Firearm Associations in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., Women Against Gun Control, 60 Plus Association, Inc., Robert B. Smith, J.D., Christie Davies, M.A., Ph. D. Joe Michael Cobb, and Mrs. Minnie Lee Faulkner in Support of Respondent
Brief for Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C. and the Liberty Legal Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Center for Individual Freedom in Support of Respondent
Brief for Retired Military Officers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Heartland Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for Goldwater Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jeanette M. Moll et al. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Reversal

you can look them up here
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/march08.shtml#07290

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2008, 10:31:40 AM »
hmm.. bingie.. Looks like they have rounded up about every democrat and left wing organization in the entire U.S.

I think that should tell us something.   Why do you think so many left wing and socialist groups want the second destroyed?

I do find it interesting that even the batf and the federal da in their brief want the court to find the second to be an individual right and that banning handguns in the home is a categorical ban of a commonly used firearm and is not constitutional.

lazs
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 11:32:19 AM by lazs2 »

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2008, 07:57:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.. bingie.. Looks like they have rounded up about every democrat and left wing organization in the entire U.S.

I think that should tell us something.   Why do you think so many left wing and socialist groups want the second destroyed?

I do find it interesting that even the batf and the federal da in their brief want the court to find the second to be an individual right and that banning handguns in the home is a categorical ban of a commonly used firearm and is not constitutional.

lazs

Hey Lazie
OHH.. common theres more on gun owner side

yes the indivual rights that you can live with?

CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment,
no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights,
secures an individual right, and should clarify that the
right is subject to the more flexible standard of review
described above . If the Court takes those foundational
steps, the better course would be to remand.
DoJ

wondering how much you could stand to read?

Check the bottom Brief.. Congress.

what about the militia?
here is one for you
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuSenateHouseMembers.pdf
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 08:25:18 PM by Bingolong »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
DoJ on Heller...
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2008, 10:21:44 AM »
bingie.. admitting that it is indeed an individual right is the first step.  It is an important step and one that needs to be out there to protect our other "rights"

You spend pages saying it was not an individual right.. it seems your supporters are retreating on that.   I read a lot of the "briefs" (anything but).

They are interesting.. the anti gun rights nuts have a common theme.. they are saying that handguns are just evil.  they miss a lot of common sense.   Would you rather be shot by a homeowner with a handgun or a rifle or shotgun?

They get all mixed up.. they talk about handguns on the street and then mix that up with handguns in the home.  They are desperate and most of the arguements are countered many times and are for the most part irrelevant to the case in question.   They sound like they are begging in many cases.

lazs