View Full Version : Vice President Dick Cheney Signs Congressional Amicus Curiae Brief
variablebinary
02-10-08, 16:05
Statement From Wayne LaPierre And Chris W. Cox On Vice President Dick Cheney Signing Congressional Amicus Curiae Brief In D.C. Case
Friday, February 08, 2008
On behalf of four million NRA members and 80 million American gun owners, we would like to thank Vice President Dick Cheney for his strong support of the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Today, in his capacity as President of the United States Senate, Vice President Cheney signed on to the congressional amicus curiae brief affirming the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. As Americans, we are grateful and fortunate to have a friend of freedom in the Vice President.
Led by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history - filed a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. 55 members of the Senate and 250 members of the House co-signed this brief along with the Vice President of the United States. This landmark brief argues that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual, fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms; that any infringement on this right should be subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny; that D.C.'s categorical ban on handguns and self-defense in the home is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any level of review; and therefore, that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's opinion in this case should be upheld.
We would also like to thank the other parties who are filing briefs in support of freedom, including other pro-Second Amendment individuals and organizations, as well as an overwhelming majority of state attorneys general.
The NRA stated in its brief filed yesterday that "In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service." We remain hopeful that justice, freedom and the will of our founding fathers will prevail at our nation's High Court.
From the man that got shotgunned... I love it!
rubberneck
02-10-08, 17:02
That can't be. Everyone knows the Bush Administration hates gun owners.:rolleyes: It's true I have read it on several internet message boards.
I get the feeling that when the Parker decision passes into history gun owners will be thanking our lucky stars that Bush beat Kerry and appointed Roberts and Alito.....
Submariner
02-10-08, 20:19
That can't be. Everyone knows the Bush Administration hates gun owners.:rolleyes:
Then please explain how the Solicitor General's opinion made it to the Supreme Court. And why the President didn't have him pull it.
Neither the document Cheney signed nor that the President sent (via the Solicitor General) address the proper standard of scrutiny as "shall not be infringed." These words are not addressed in either brief.
Well, I am thankful that the brief was signed and sent. It sure beats not having been signed and sent. I don't know why the President didn't sign it and send it.
I think I will write the Vice President and thank him.
Sonny
rubberneck
02-10-08, 22:55
Then please explain how the Solicitor General's opinion made it to the Supreme Court. And why the President didn't have him pull it.
Neither the document Cheney signed nor that the President sent (via the Solicitor General) address the proper standard of scrutiny as "shall not be infringed." These words are not addressed in either brief.
You mean the part where both briefs left no doubt that the administrations position was that the 2nd amendment was an individual right? I swear sometimes I think some gun owners would complain about having pay taxes after winning the lottery. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good.
He didn't give you exactly what you wanted him but then again he gave you a hell of a lot more than Kerry, Clinton and Obama would have. While we are on the subject has any administration ever gone on the record, twice no less, on the issue?
Neither the document Cheney signed nor that the President sent (via the Solicitor General) address the proper standard of scrutiny as "shall not be infringed." These words are not addressed in either brief.
OK, the right won't be infringed. No one is arguing that, you see.
What they're arguing is the definition of that right. So if the decision is that the right means you can own a gun but not necessarily a handgun, then that right (to own a gun, but not necessarily a handgun) won't be infringed.
The Supreme Court has universally allowed reasonable limitations of time, place, and manner to Constitutional rights. The most common layman's example is, "you can't shout FIRE! in a theater." A better example might be defamation laws ... your right to free speech won't extend to lying about someone else if it hurts their reputation.
Do you think convicted felons should be allowed to buy guns, or is that an ok limitation?
That can't be. Everyone knows the Bush Administration hates gun owners.:rolleyes: It's true I have read it on several internet message boards.
I get the feeling that when the Parker decision passes into history gun owners will be thanking our lucky stars that Bush beat Kerry and appointed Roberts and Alito.....
Vice President Cheney went against his administration by doing this. This issue is even being discussed in my political science classes as well as countless forums. This reason our class is discussing the issue is because it is the first time in history that the VP has went against the President and Justice Department on an issue this big. The Bush administration asked for the ban to be upheld. Vice President Cheney went against this decision. He is a great American by doing so.
variablebinary
02-11-08, 01:41
Vice President Cheney went against his administration by doing this. This issue is even being discussed in my political science classes as well as countless forums. This reason our class is discussing the issue is because it is the first time in history that the VP has went against the President and Justice Department on an issue this big. The Bush administration asked for the ban to be upheld. Vice President Cheney went against this decision. He is a great American by doing so.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
VP Cheney needs to be openly praised for stepping forward and living up the oath of his office.
Vice President Cheney went against his administration by doing this. This issue is even being discussed in my political science classes as well as countless forums. This reason our class is discussing the issue is because it is the first time in history that the VP has went against the President and Justice Department on an issue this big. The Bush administration asked for the ban to be upheld. Vice President Cheney went against this decision. He is a great American by doing so.
I don't think this is correct. The Bush administration didn't ask for the ban to be upheld. But that it be kicked back to the lower court to be reevaluate. The administration believes that it is a protected right but that the government can make reasonable restrictions. It more or less splits the difference, suggesting the DC ban goes too far, but that reasonable restrictions should be allowed to the government. It seem the Admin. wants the DC ban overturned but not to have the court answer if the 2nd amendment refers to a individual right or a "collective right". Why the Bush administration would not what this question taken up by the Court is beyond me.
I have not read the brief but this is my basic understanding of it.
I have read there brief the Cheney signed. It does argue that the second amendment it a right given to the people not to the sate militia. It is a good argument they put forth. This is very important. If the court correctly interprets as a right of the people then states will have less ability to pass "gun control" laws like those in DC and other "liberal" states. It may make it harder for "may issue" states to not be "shall issue" states. It may also make many of the silly CA laws fail the "shall not infringe" wording the 2nd amendment.
The Bush administration asked for the ban to be upheld.
No, it didn't.
If the court correctly interprets as a right of the people then states will have less ability to pass "gun control" laws like those in DC and other "liberal" states. It may make it harder for "may issue" states to not be "shall issue" states. It may also make many of the silly CA laws fail the "shall not infringe" wording the 2nd amendment.
The Supremes could decide absolutely anything. However, there are some particularly prominent issues they'd need to decide before any of those things would change:
The Second Amendment is an individual right, contrary to the silly "collective right" theory. Standing in the way of this is the poorly worded "militia clause" in the amendment itself.
That the right protected in the Second Amendment should be incorporated via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Contrary to popular misconception, the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Federal government only. When things like free speech and the right against self-incrimination are granted at the state and local levels, it's because the Supreme Court has ruled that those specific rights were "incorporated" by the 14th and therefore must be obeyed by the States. The Second Amendment as well as a few other key provisions of the BoR (the entire Third Amendment, the right to indictment by grand jury, the requirement for a unanimous 12-person jury in criminal trials, and the right to jury trials in civil suits) have never been incorporated.
That the various restrictions in Heller (no handguns period) or your list (CA laws, prohibitions against concealed carry) are violations of the Second Amendment (and more specifically, violations of the right to the extend it is incorporated) rather than reasonable Constitutional limitations.
You mean the part where both briefs left no doubt that the administrations position was that the 2nd amendment was an individual right? I swear sometimes I think some gun owners would complain about having pay taxes after winning the lottery. Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good.
He didn't give you exactly what you wanted him but then again he gave you a hell of a lot more than Kerry, Clinton and Obama would have. While we are on the subject has any administration ever gone on the record, twice no less, on the issue?
Did you read the Solicitor General's brief? It basically says "Sure, it's an individual right as long as we can keep all our gun control."
rubberneck
02-11-08, 08:20
Did you read the Solicitor General's brief? It basically says "Sure, it's an individual right as long as we can keep all our gun control."
I did and no it didn't.
rubberneck
02-11-08, 08:24
Vice President Cheney went against his administration by doing this. This issue is even being discussed in my political science classes as well as countless forums. This reason our class is discussing the issue is because it is the first time in history that the VP has went against the President and Justice Department on an issue this big. The Bush administration asked for the ban to be upheld. Vice President Cheney went against this decision. He is a great American by doing so.
No he didn't. Cheney is a lot of things but the one thing he is above all others is loyal. If he signed his name to it, it is because he had the President's approval. I am still waiting for anyone to offer any sort of evidence that he went against the President's wishes. Your professor saying so isn't proof.
Submariner
02-11-08, 08:46
Did you read the Solicitor General's brief? It basically says "Sure, it's an individual right as long as we can keep all our [federal] gun control."
Fixed it for you.;)
VP Cheney needs to be openly praised for stepping forward and living up the oath of his office.
Could we then conclude that the President is not living up to his oath of office? Impeachment?
variablebinary
02-11-08, 11:07
Could we then conclude that the President is not living up to his oath of office? Impeachment?
What we can conclude is the VP has done the right thing where many other politicians have not. How you choose to spin that is on you.
No he didn't. Cheney is a lot of things but the one thing he is above all others is loyal. If he signed his name to it, it is because he had the President's approval. I am still waiting for anyone to offer any sort of evidence that he went against the President's wishes. Your professor saying so isn't proof.
Perhaps the President gave his consent for the VP to sign as per the VP's beliefs. Even though it seem though it take a stronger pro 2nd amendment position.
The VP ( and co-signers) encourges the court to find the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right. The Admin. basically seeks to encourage the court to not take the case and make a determination on the 2nd amendment eitherway. Anyone else think the Admin. has taken a stupid position?
Anyone else think the Admin. has taken a stupid position?
If nothing else it is a politically safe position.
The Administration's position, as I read it, is that NFA and GCA68 (and other laws/regs) are constitutional and, as the entity responsible for defending such things before the USSC, they don't want to see those laws deleted wholesale in a decision that eliminates the DC handgun ban.
If you actually pay attention to what the Bush Administration's brief says, it doesn't say the DC ban should be upheld. It specifically does say that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The issue, which is more a matter of legal wrangling than anything else, is the specific standard of review that an appellate court should employ when deciding a case like this.
The U.S. Court of Appeals decision could be read in such a way that it would invalidate NFA and GCA68 overnight. The Administration's position is that while the DC law is probably unconstitutional, the way the Court of Appeals reached the decision was improper.
If you believe NFA and GCA68 should go away in their entirety, then yes, you disagree with the Bush Administration brief.
...hell yes I want 'em to go away...and any that came after them as well...I want cheap, surplus machine guns available again, whether made here or anywhere else...ammo too...It should be a crime for the feds to destroy surplus without making it available to those who originally paid for it...first
http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
gyp ... So just to be sure I understand what you're saying: You believe that convicted felons, admitted drug addicts, illegal aliens, pre-teens, and people who have sworn to overthrow the government of the United States through force should be allowed unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
gyp ... So just to be sure I understand what you're saying: You believe that convicted felons, admitted drug addicts, illegal aliens, pre-teens, and people who have sworn to overthrow the government of the United States through force should be allowed unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Yep, if it means my God given right to bear arms is fully restored.
I could care less who else is armed.
...I don't fit into those categories myself...
I do however want those particular overburdening, ill conceived and inappropriately interpreted legislations to either be properly amended or abolished.
If that means to you exactly what you said and nothing else is possible, then yes...I'd rather they be available to everyone than only those with the money or credentials...
Criminals seem to be able to afford anything they want anyhow...they take or they buy without any respect for the law anyway...
If laws are made to regulate, they should be written to favor the lawful, not punish them...ymmv and all that
I've seen it before and after...I liked it better before...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-12-08, 00:58
convicted felons, admitted drug addicts, illegal aliens, pre-teens, and people who have sworn to overthrow the government of the United States through force should be allowed unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.
Damn, that sounds like a Ron Paul rally!:D
Just kidding.
I do however want those particular overburdening, ill conceived and inappropriately interpreted legislations to either be properly amended or abolished.
(...)
If laws are made to regulate, they should be written to favor the lawful, not punish them.
gyp -- thanks, you've proved my point (and the administration's, btw). Based on the parts of your post I quoted and bolded, above, it's clear that you feel some regulation is reasonable. The administration's brief called for an analysis of the Heller case that took such things into account. The administration's brief, in essence, said, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
edited: Too much legal mumbo jumbo. :cool:
KintlaLake
02-12-08, 05:43
...convicted felons, admitted drug addicts, illegal aliens, pre-teens, and people who have sworn to overthrow the government of the United States through force should be allowed unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.
Permit me, Todd, to channel the cockeyed constitutional logic for a moment (not that you haven't heard it before ;) ).
Whereas the fundamental purpose of the individual right set forth in the Second Amendment is to facilitate effective armed insurrection in the face of a tyrannical authority; and
Whereas it's reasonable to infer that individual citizens' armed insurrection would be ineffective if said tyrannical authority bears arms superior to those possessed by individual citizens; and
Whereas even felons, drug addicts, illegals, children, and committed anarchists may be victims of oppression by said tyrannical authority;
Be it resolved that any and all regulation of a citizen's right to choose, possess and discharge arms of any kind is in violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
:rolleyes:
Anyway, Todd, I join you in disagreeing with that line of thinking (sic).
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-12-08, 09:46
I want to sign on to Kintla Lake's brief.
So I read both amicus briefs again this morning, and my take on it is this:
The Executive Branch brief says, "The 2A is an individual right and anyone who says otherwise is a dummy. However, like all of the other protections in the BOR, the 2A needs to be subject to reasonable limitations in keeping with its historical and practical framework. The lower court used the wrong standard of review. When a lower court is found to use the wrong standard of review, the Supreme Court is suppose to remand the case rather than apply the correct standard itself." It was unpleasant to see that they used the AWB as persuasive precedent for the Federal government's authority to regulate RKBA.
The Legislative Branch brief says, "The 2A is an individual right and anyone who says otherwise is a dummy."
So I read both amicus briefs again this morning, and my take on it is this:
The Executive Branch brief says, "The 2A is an individual right and anyone who says otherwise is a dummy. However, like all of the other protections in the BOR, the 2A needs to be subject to reasonable limitations in keeping with its historical and practical framework. The lower court used the wrong standard of review. When a lower court is found to use the wrong standard of review, the Supreme Court is suppose to remand the case rather than apply the correct standard itself." It was unpleasant to see that they used the AWB as persuasive precedent for the Federal government's authority to regulate RKBA.
The Legislative Branch brief says, "The 2A is an individual right and anyone who says otherwise is a dummy."
The Bush administration has shown its true colors in the past 8 years on the RKBA.
Anything to the positive is spin.
Lets review the actions of the current administration.
1. Parts Kit Ban (backdoor AWB)
2. Appointing an anti gun person to head the ATF, Michael Sullivan
3. Reinstate the Clinton era EO against guns and ammo from China
4. Moving the ATF under the Department of Justice and increasing their power
5. Increasing the size and budget of the ATF
6. Anti gun attorney general Gonzales
7. On record in support of a new AWB numerous times
8. Supreme court brief citing the AWB and all current gun control as reasonable
9. Upholding the Clinton era EO against importing semi auto rifles that hold more than 10 rounds
How much more does one need to see to realize the administration is no friend of the gun owner?
4. Moving the ATF under the Department of Justice and increasing their power
5. Increasing the size and budget of the ATF
Dude ... ATF-bashing went out in the 90's. Every ATF agent I know (quite a few) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner. Suggesting a bigger ATF is bad for gun owners is like saying a bigger FDA is bad for people who need medicine.
Not to mention that the spin you're putting on it is completely ridiculous. ATF wasn't moved or enlarged as part of anyone's gun control agenda. The entire federal law enforcement landscape was juggled when DHS was formed. Pretty much every fed LE agency has seen its budgets increased compared to pre-9/11 levels.
There are a lot of US- and European-based companies in the firearms industry that lobby quietly to keep those China import restrictions in place. There are US-based companies that lobby to keep the other import restrictions in place.
But you're right, given the massive political capital Bush has saved up over the past five years and his incalculable popularity among moderates and independents, it's amazing he didn't focus more of his efforts on critical national security issues like the importation of rifle barrels for private ownership.
NFA is not going away. GCA68 is not going away. How you can compare gun control under the last Dem president (AWB, "instant" checks, etc.) to the current administration is beyond me.
Dude ... ATF-bashing went out in the 90's. Every ATF agent I know (quite a few) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner. Suggesting a bigger ATF is bad for gun owners is like saying a bigger FDA is bad for people who need medicine.
Not to mention that the spin you're putting on it is completely ridiculous. ATF wasn't moved or enlarged as part of anyone's gun control agenda. The entire federal law enforcement landscape was juggled when DHS was formed. Pretty much every fed LE agency has seen its budgets increased compared to pre-9/11 levels.
There are a lot of US- and European-based companies in the firearms industry that lobby quietly to keep those China import restrictions in place. There are US-based companies that lobby to keep the other import restrictions in place.
But you're right, given the massive political capital Bush has saved up over the past five years and his incalculable popularity among moderates and independents, it's amazing he didn't focus more of his efforts on critical national security issues like the importation of rifle barrels for private ownership.
NFA is not going away. GCA68 is not going away. How you can compare gun control under the last Dem president (AWB, "instant" checks, etc.) to the current administration is beyond me.
The parts kit ban is a direct result of increasing the size of the ATF.
They have more time, money, and resources to sit around and make bullshit decisions and rulings like this instead of catching real criminals running guns across state lines.
Every ATF agent I know (quite a few) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner.
Mutually exclusive
Mutually exclusive
Huh? :confused:
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-12-08, 18:11
Todd,
But you're right, given the massive political capital Bush has saved up over the past five years and his incalculable popularity among moderates and independents, it's amazing he didn't focus more of his efforts on critical national security issues like the importation of rifle barrels for private ownership.
That is funny as hell. I almost choked on the peanut butter pancakes I was eating when I read it (PB pancakes are badass, by the way).
Clearly, the Bush administration has been MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better for gun owners than the prior presidents, including his dad. Bush had Tom Delay keep the AWB from hitting his desk in 04. I remember debating with folks on the internet who SWORE Bush was going to get a new AWB. Then after it became obvious they were wrong. They SWORE Bush would get a new one "right after the election.":rolleyes: Still waiting.
Further, I think the rest of your analysis is spot-on. The sad thing is, if McCain loses, people are going to learn what a really anti-gun president looks like. Obama was on the board of the Joyce foundation, supports the banning of all semi-automatic weapons, handguns, etc. Gun owners better get real, real fast.
...
gyp -- thanks, you've proved my point (and the administration's, btw). Based on the parts of your post I quoted and bolded, above, it's clear that you feel some regulation is reasonable.
...nooooo...what I said...is that I'm old and I remember when the damn things were cheap...
I still don't like the parts of those laws that changed all that...you're correct about the rest as far as it goes...I do agree with your interpretation of what's goin' on with the brief...and yes, no matter what...we're in for a shitstorm...
It's gonna' be very hot this summer...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
I believe both should go away. But then again I'm for States being able to make their own decisions under that pesky "10th Amendment" thing ;)
While I certainly agree with your opinion on the 10th, it would be a major break from the Court's current course if they started using it to limit anything related to restrictions on interstate trade. That one little clause of the Constitution has been perverted to cover, well, everything.
And if the Court did turn everything over to the States, people would still incorrectly demand that the Second Amendment should bar a state from passing any restrictions. (Though, at least in theory, Heller could turn that on its ear ... which would be great but highly unlikely)
I really like your website btw Todd :cool:
You have excellent taste in websites.
I bet a lot of those people that want them probably allready have them. Criminals don't follows laws.
By that logic, nothing should be illegal. While it's certainly true that criminals (and so I suppose minors, illegals, the mentally disturbed, etc.) can get a hold of a gun should they so desire, the fact that they do so in violation of the law has always been part of the argument in favor of keeping guns legal for the rest of us. Furthermore, it adds another layer of penalty for those who are convicted.
There are probably some excellent arguments for eliminating or at least amending both NFA and GCA68, but the political reality is that you just won't get enough popular support for the idea to make a dent in them on a political or legal level. It's hard to explain to a non-gun-owner why cars and drivers are licensed, for example, but guns are not. ("Because there is no Constitutional Amendment for cars!" people will say, but actually the Supreme Court has upheld the right of travel (Kent v. Dulles))
gyp ... So just to be sure I understand what you're saying: You believe that convicted felons, admitted drug addicts, illegal aliens, pre-teens, and people who have sworn to overthrow the government of the United States through force should be allowed unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
so you believe the government is qualified/justified in deciding who can and cannot bear arms?
we're faaaar past "reasonable" restrictions man. i can't remember the last reasonable gun law i read.
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-16-08, 19:51
so you believe the government is qualified/justified in deciding who can and cannot bear arms?
Obviously, everyone agrees that they can make some decisions. For example, presumably the government can decide that prisoners cannot bear arms.
I think it is reasonable that anyone convicted of a felony in, say, the last 10 years can be restricted from having a firearm. Probably forever if they are a violent felon. Obviously most states don't allow felons to vote. So there is reasonable precedent for that.
I DON't think that restrictions on fully automatic weapons and suppressors are reasonable. Frankly, I would be less afraid of a gangbanger with an AKM that a crazy experienced hunter with a bolt rifle.
Further, I don't think a free citizen (subject to the above restrictions) should be restricted in carrying anywhere where the premises owner allows it.
I may be wrong about this, but prior to the GCA 1968 felons were not prohibited from owning firearms. Many gun owners are for reasonable control. The problem is no one can say what is reasonable. Are background checks acceptable? I say, Yes. Long ass waiting periods that inconvenience people, I say No.
Personally I would love to see machine guns availabe again in larger numbers, especially since no criminal will stand the ATF background check, and probably not the associated costs, either.
What strikes me as curious is how could the Lautenberg Amendment survive even after being reviewed, and when put against the Constitutions prohibition of ex post facto laws. It would be like passing a law that says if you are convicted of DUI/DWI that you lose your driving privelage (not a right) for 10 years and then applying to everyone reagrdless of when they were convicted. Especially because I can almost guarantee that no lawmaker looked at the definition of domestic violence/ assault and it varies by state or just how easy it is to be convicted in some states. Not to mention the fact that some people plead guilty due to expediency, not ever thinking that they would lose their right to own a firearm forever, due to a misdemeanor.
rubberneck
02-17-08, 19:50
I believe both should go away. But then again I'm for States being able to make their own decisions under that pesky "10th Amendment" thing ;)
I am even a bigger fan of the 14th Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Bill of Rights applies to the States not just the Federal Government and that includes the Second Amendment.
The Dumb Gun Collector
02-18-08, 00:37
If it has been incorporated it does.
By that logic, nothing should be illegal.
Todd, let me clarify:
Murder: malum in SE
10.5 barrel: malum PROHIBITUM
Rape: malum in SE
Supressor: malum PROHIBITUM
Nude pics of Janet Reno: malum in SE
You get me now, I hope :cool:
I agree, NFA and GCA should be changed. That's what I'd like to see. And the 86 prohibition on MG's.
Todd, let me clarify:
Murder: malum in SE
10.5 barrel: malum PROHIBITUM
Rape: malum in SE
Supressor: malum PROHIBITUM
Nude pics of Janet Reno: malum in SE
So you're arguing that there should be no malum prohibitum laws?
How about: Child pornography
military-grade explosives
anthrax
plutonium
heroin
prescription medicines
... just to name a few.
rubberneck
02-22-08, 09:38
If it has been incorporated it does.
Incorporation happens when the Supreme Courts says it does. Several of the Amicus briefs have requested that the court do so with the second amendment.
So you're arguing that there should be no malum prohibitum laws?
How about: Child pornography
military-grade explosives
anthrax
plutonium
heroin
prescription medicines
... just to name a few.
No, not at all, I'm arguing that certain things are illegal are simply illegal because they are malum prohibitum, and shouldn't be. Like MG's for instance.
That still leaves us with the Janet Reno question :eek:
While it is true that reasonable men may differ in their opinions on many topics, hopefully we can all agree that pictures of Janet Reno naked are a crime not just against society but against nature itself.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.