D.C. gun ban affects entire U.S.

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by E.L., Feb 16, 2008.

  1. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    [SIZE=+2]Kay Bailey Hutchison: D.C. gun ban affects entire U.S.

    [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Second Amendment rights should be unambiguous

    [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]08:46 AM CST on Thursday, February 14, 2008

    [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] [/SIZE] The right to keep and bear arms is secure in Texas, but in our nation's capital it has been taken away.
    In 1976, the Washington City Council passed the nation's toughest gun control law, banning handguns completely and requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and locked or disassembled.
    The D.C. murder rate was declining before this law; in the next 15 years it jumped 200 percent.
    Besides being ineffective, the ban was simply incomprehensible. Under D.C. law, business owners have the right to use a firearm to protect their store cash registers, but they cannot use the same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes.
    Federal law enforcement officers protecting citizens and officials in the district with firearms cannot use similar protection in their homes.
    This prohibition has been challenged in court, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the district's ban was not only unreasonable but unconstitutional.
    Next month, for the first time since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of Second Amendment rights when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. The court's decision will have major implications for all Americans.
    I have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court with my colleague Jon Tester from Montana – along with Vice President Dick Cheney as president of the Senate, 53 other U.S. senators and 250 members of the House – for the respondent, who simply wishes to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself. It has the most congressional signatures on any amicus brief to the Supreme Court.
    The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they put the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. It was not an accident. In 1775, the American Revolution began because ordinary farmers decided to fight back against foreign tyranny. Many, if not most, in George Washington's regiments used their own guns.
    The Second Amendment says, "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." It is clear that our founders did not use the term "militia" to suggest that gun rights could be used only in an organized army. But gun control advocates have made this argument for years.
    If the framers' purpose had been a collective right, they would have been satisfied with Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.
    Instead, to ensure that gun ownership was recognized as an individual right, they included it in the Bill of Rights, a compilation of such other individual rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The location of these words provides strong evidence for the founders' vision.
    Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." In debate on the Bill of Rights, James Madison wanted the American people to have the right to be armed in order to prevent the kind of tyranny that dominated the rest of the world, especially Europe.
    The Second Amendment ensures that people have the ability to secure our rights and defend them from government suppression, if necessary. It is that right that a government of the people, by the people and for the people must never extinguish.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm an individual's Second Amendment right to self-defense. Though gun-control advocates have questioned this through the years, Congress never has.
    From the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865 to the Property Requisition Act of 1941, Congress reaffirmed the solemn position of the U.S. as a defender of one's right to protect his being and his home with an operable firearm. I hope the Supreme Court will affirm the individual right to self-defense with a firearm so that it is clear and unambiguous.
    It is an opportunity, perhaps, of a lifetime.

    Kay Bailey Hutchison is the senior U.S. senator from Texas. She can be reached through www.hutchison.senate.gov.
  2. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    [SIZE=+1]The Second Amendment’s Day in Court[/SIZE]
    <small>Human Events ^ | 02/15/2008 | Oliver North</small>

    <small>Posted on 02/19/2008 12:29:11 AM PST by Yosemitest</small>

    [​IMG][SIZE=+2]"The Second Amendment’s Day in Court"[/SIZE]
    by Oliver North 02/15/2008.
    When the Washington, D.C. City Council enacted the toughest gun-control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers -- according to what they said at the time -- believed they were making our nation’s capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably. Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to both make our capital safer -- and ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.
    No matter how well intentioned, the D.C. firearms statute has been unfathomable from the start. On its face, the law bans handguns and requires rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. While it allows business owners to use a firearm to protect their cash registers at their stores, they cannot use that same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes. Individuals who protect federal officials and property in the District with firearms are not permitted to provide similar protection for themselves and their families in their own domiciles.
    In fact, the case that the Supreme Court will hear, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by Mr. Dick Heller, a security guard. In carrying out his duties, Mr. Heller carries a handgun on Federal property. However, when he sought to register the same weapon to safeguard his home, he was denied. Mr. Heller says the D.C. law has it backwards.
    • “I can protect [federal workers], but at the end of the day they say, ‘turn in your gun, you can't protect your home.’”
    Mr. Heller maintains that disassembled rifles and shotguns are no substitute for handguns,
    • “any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an ‘adequate substitute.’”
    Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 2-1, that the District’s prohibition was not only unreasonable, it was clearly unconstitutional. Attorneys for the District of Columbia promptly appealed the decision. That is why on March 18, for the first time since 1939, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether such a gun ban for law-abiding citizens is constitutional. Their verdict, expected later this year, will have profound implications for all Americans.
    [​IMG] The case has generated a flurry of unprecedented action in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. On January 11, the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed an egregiously weak amicus -- friend of the court -- brief in the case. The argument, submitted by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, essentially urges the Supremes to waffle on the issue and send the case back to the lower courts.
    [​IMG] The DOJ softball didn’t sit well with U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). On February 8, she filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Heller and the exercise of his individual rights under the Second Amendment:
    <center>“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.” </center> In her lucid and detailed exposition, Senator Hutchison accurately points out that the Framers never intended that the word “militia,” meant that the right to keep and bear arms was some kind of “collective” right that applied only to a particular group. If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power
    • “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
    To ensure that that firearms possession was recognized by posterity as an “individual right,” the Framers included it as part of the Bill of Rights -- an enumeration of every citizen’s personal entitlements: free speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The precise location of those famous words -- “the right to keep and bear arms” -- provides strong evidence for the Founders’ vision.
    To foreclose any doubt where Congress comes down on the issue,
    • Senator Hutchison has introduced a bill to repeal the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns;
      repeal registration requirements;
      and restore the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep a loaded, operable firearm in their homes.
    Doing less denies the meaning of the words “shall not be abridged.” Her argument was so persuasive that 54 additional Senators and 250 Members of the House of Representatives -- including 68 Democrats -- signed on. Vice President Dick Cheney -- apparently at odds with the administration’s Department of Justice -- did so as well. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with these enlightened members of Congress -- and Abraham Lincoln who said,
    • “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    [applaud][applaud][applaud][flag]can't express how happy I am congress weighed in confirmining the "individual right" argument.[beer]
  4. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Everyone should be aware of Kay Hutchinson's personal reason for her involvement with support of the 2ond. She has her reasons, much more so than most of us, thank God.
  5. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    So the case will be heard on March 18 and the verdict won't happen until later this year.

    Why so long before deciding?
  6. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    What are Kay Baily Hutchinson's reasons? You are not getting her confused with Susanna Hupp are you? She is the former TX. Rep. who's parents were killed in the Luby's massacre in Killeen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ksjN2B6Ax8

    I wish Hupp was still in office. Kay Bailey is rumored to be leaving the senate when the next govenitorial race begins so that she can run for Gov. of Texas. We need her in Texas, but we also need her in congress too. God Bless both Kay Baily and Susanna Rupp.
  7. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Yep, my bad; it was Susan Hupp that I was thinking of.
  8. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    For a second you had me thinking that there was a story behind Kay Baily too.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary