Local foundation files brief in 2nd Amendment case

It all gets down to a pair of very simple questions. Lets ask these to presidential candidates starting with Republicans who pander to the gun vote:
*******
The DC Court of Appeals released an opinion on March 9 in Parker et al. v. DC Government. After many pages in which the court fabricated an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context and struck down DC's gun control law, Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:

"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for
service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/op...
p. 54

Registration of ownership, militia call up, proficiency testing, public safety regulation, screening for militia suitability. These are the makings of a firearms policy. Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusion? Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on these conclusions?
*******
Doesn't anyone understand this issue? Judge Silberman's conclusions are not just the makings of a firearms policy. They are a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine that the purpose of all those guns in private hands is to maintain an anarchic balance of power between a privately armed populace, armed outside of the knowledge and reach of law, and any and all government. The gun lobby would fight viciously to defeat any legislative attempts to implement Judge Silberman's conclusions. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn them.
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html
http://www.potowmack.org/5issues.html
http://www.potowmack.org/gunviol.html
http://www.potowmack.org/heller.html
Do we have to wait till this gets to the Supreme Court? The gun rights ideologies have been in the federal courts for more than thirty years.
http://www.potowmack.org/warin.html
http://www.potowmack.org/silveira.html
http://www.potowmack.org/nordyke.html
http://www.potowmack.org/emeramic.html
http://wwwa.potowmack.org/parker.html
Can we now get politicians to answer questions that get at what is really at stake?

See The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If more people used thier right to bear arms. Thier would be less crime. The streets and schools would be safe once again. I have carried a handgun for personal protection since I was 21, I am now 51. I have never had to use it, and am glad of this. People need to protect themselves. Calling 911 when someone has a gun pointed at you, dont stop bullets from killing. But having a gun to defend yourself will give you a good chance to save your life.

Edward;
dont waste your time. The liberals look at the world, and see it for what it can be. We look at the world and see it for what it is. And for gods sake, don't provide any facts or sources, they'll call you names. I've carried for many years, had to brandish it once. I've never been a victim. stay safe.

Thank you very much Mr. Kienzle for your support of the individual fundamental rights view of our Second Amendment. We also have the broad bipartisan support of the majority of Congress with 55 Senators and about 250 House members along with Vice President Dick Cheney to back up our view. The more that we have on our side, the better. Further more we also have 40 States Attorneys Generals.

Thanks again for your Associations support.

Those who oppose the Second Amendment use the First Amendment to be herd.

The Bill Of Rights Is not an Ala Cart menu.

Just imagine had GEErnst been in attendance at the US constitutional convention some two centuries ago. His assignment: compose an ammendment that will go between numbers one and three. Here is what he might have come up with:

----The right of the states to form well regulated, armed militias shall not be infringed. Or, the right of the people to keep arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias shall not be infringed. Or, some other variant of this line of thought concerning the association of individual citizens and (military type) arms.
But, most fortunately, profound wisdom prevailed, and the people who knew and understood tyrany gave us that 2nd ammendment which as it is worded, gives those armed forces (militias of the 1790s) much incentive to remain within the bounds of civilian regulation. Oceans of blood and innumerable mass graves around the world give testimony to potential consequences of alternative views of armed citizens (or unarmed subjects).
GEErnst, you may be a good and well intioned fellow, but I'm glad you wern't there.

"Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots." ~ John Adams

I distrust democracies...thank God for Natural Rights

"Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free." ~ Harry Browne

these gun accidents are terrible tragedies, but no reason to regulate firearms...

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." ~ Albert Camus

leave me alone, I can take care of myself and my family!!!

The history of guns in our country and the many statements made by those present when the amendment was written and their attitude toward government are consistent with an individual right. If the supreme court where to ignore this information and conclude that the 2nd amendment is a collective right this would literally be grounds for an actual revolution. Based on this reasoning, it can be expected that the justices will side with the individual right position. This decision will certainly be bad news for all the "anti gun nuts" as they will just have to learn to live like real Americans or move to another country.

Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun--

catwoman wrote:

The history of guns in our country and the many statements made by those present when the amendment was written and their attitude toward government are consistent with an individual right. If the supreme court where to ignore this information and conclude that the 2nd amendment is a collective right this would literally be grounds for an actual revolution. Based on this reasoning, it can be expected that the justices will side with the individual right position. This decision will certainly be bad news for all the "anti gun nuts" as they will just have to learn to live like real Americans or move to another country.

This is not a Second Amendment case.
The Justices are only being asked if the D.C. law conforms to the Second Amendment with respect to being allowed to have an operating fire arm in the home to defend one's life and liberty.

Most likely any ruling will only affect Washington D.C. and not the Nation.

Long Live The 2nd Amendment!
If a criminal is looking for a home to invade or break into and he knows you have a gun or perhaps several in your home I guarantee he will pass your place by and find easier pickings.
It's a sad thing there are a few mentally unstable people out there causing these tragedies but if there were no guns on the planet they would just as easily rum amok with a machete or just toss a homemade bomb into a classroom.
I recall an episode of "All In The Family" years ago where Archie and Gloria were having a discussion on gun control.
Gloria was rattling off stats about the number of people killed by handguns and Archie asked her something like, "Would it make you feel better little girl if they was pushed out of windows?"
People have been killing people since people have been on this planet and you can bet if honest people have no guns it will only get worse in this country.

Here is a site with an interesting article.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Eugene Manlove Rhodes was right when he said. "When the government gets guns out of the hands of the people they always do them dirty"

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>This is not a Second Amendment case.
The Justices are only being asked if the D.C. law conforms to the Second Amendment with respect to being allowed to have an operating fire arm in the home to defend one's life and liberty.
Most likely any ruling will only affect Washington D.C. and not the Nation.

Got news for ya. USSC decisions apply nation wide!

Dear Woodpiggie:

Here it is again. I give you the assignment to ask the pair of questions to candidates for public office starting with candidates for president:

****
The DC Court of Appeals released an opinion on March 9 in Parker et al. v. DC Government. After many pages in which the court fabricated an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context and struck down DC's gun control law, Judge Silberman arrived at these conclusions:

"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/op ...
p. 54

Registration of ownership, militia call up, proficiency testing, public safety regulation, screening for militia suitability. These are the makings of a firearms policy. Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusion? Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on these conclusions.
****
Let us get this started. It is a civic obligation just like militia duty. There are no individual rights in a conscript military organization.

I see GEErnst is still promoting his propaganda funded by "a few wealthy benefactors" and backed by lower court rulings, some of which have been overturned or were minority decisions but no Supreme Court cases. I also note the fraud who attempted to use the Potomack name but was caught and called on it back on the old CNN boards has now changed the name to what appears today.

Would you buy a used car from such a person?

Ernst attempted to make a case against the Emerson decision but was rightfully ignored by the Justices in the 5th Circuit and SC who ruled it was an individual right not dependant on "militia" as all were rightfully members of the unorganized militia. Ernst, your propaganda fails the first tests, credibility, truth, history and prior court decisions. You may find a few gullible people here but I doubt it?

GEErnst wrote:

<snip>Let us get this started. It is a civic obligation just like militia duty. There are no individual rights in a conscript military organization.

Your ramblings are so misguided, I don't even know where to start. Over the next several days you can expect from me a host of postings to show how wrong and uninformed you really are. And many other people will be here to follow suit, trust me. You can expect some highly critical and highly informed posts from folks who haven't bought in to the brainwashing that you seem to have. So let's get started...

Militia duty is NOT a conscript military organization. The individual rights to owning firearms and of self defense are NOT negotiable and subject to your inept interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled that protection of the individual is NOT the responsibility of the police or government (See Castle Rock versus Gonzales). Therefore, protection of me and my family is my responsibility and my responsibility alone. I choose to use firearms as part of my defense in depth strategy. I'm not an anarchist - I am a law abiding, free man, who supports and defends the Constitution of my country whole heartedly.

You are terribly misguided and uninformed.

It amazes me how many people do not know or understand the first part of the 26 words, "A well-regulated militia,..."
nor are aware of how much more likely it is that a member of the household will be shot if there is a gun in the house.
My late husband went to gunsmith school and we took our son for hunter safety course so that he could hunt with his dad so I'm not opposed to guns, per se, but I am opposed to ignorance!

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>This is not a Second Amendment case.
The Justices are only being asked if the D.C. law conforms to the Second Amendment with respect to being allowed to have an operating fire arm in the home to defend one's life and liberty.
Most likely any ruling will only affect Washington D.C. and not the Nation.

To the contrary. Any decision they make will affect everyone by setting precedent. If the court rules in favor of an individual right, then DC's gun ban will lose more ground, and it will be harder for gun ban rules to come into existence. If they rule the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, then cities across the nation will use that decision to model their gun ban laws after DC's law.

Most folks do not even know the issue before the court...sad.

The issue before the court is: The issue in Heller is simple. The issue — or “question presented”— is whether the D.C. gun ban violates the Second Amendment right of individual citizens not connected with any state-sponsored militia to have guns in their home for private use.

http://www.billofrights.org/

FEDERALIST No. 28 HAMILTON Quote:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense
which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense.
The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny...