Signatories of the amicus brief in support of MacDonald v Chicago suit

imported post

:celebrate:celebrateBoth Senators Webb and Warner signed onto the brief in support of incorporation of 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment. Many congresscritters did too, including Rob Wittman of District 1. Way to go!

:celebrate:celebrate

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf

imported post

Sweet. This has bipartisan support, which is more compelling than a purely party-line response.

We're gonna win this one, and party machine thugs like King Daley will have a stroke! Its about time!!

imported post

Udall and Bennet both did from CO, as well. Some democrats aren't as dumb as they look.

imported post

We can only hope...

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

We can only hope...

Click to expand...

No, we can also write letters to the newspapers, to the congresscritters who are already signed on thanking them, to the congresscritters who are not signed on telling tham that they have lost our support in the coming election(s), and otherwise informing the public that the restoration of the privileges and immunities clause will be a Good Thing[suP]TM[/suP] for the country.

While the Supreme Court acts in rarified air, they do not in total isolation. And if it becomes necessary for Congress to rectify some error made, they need to know the consequences of failing to do The Right Thing[suP]TM[/suP].

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

Ignorance here... What does this mean?

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

:celebrate:celebrateBoth Senators Webb and Warner signed onto the brief in support of incorporation of 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment. Many congresscritters did too, including Rob Wittman of District 1. Way to go!

:celebrate:celebrate

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf

Click to expand...

Well, for Webb that is a step in the right direction. Still, Webb supports this monstrous, expensiveintrusion called health care reform.

imported post

I've already written Webb and Warner some blistering letters about their support of the health care monstrosity, but I can still be big enough to praise them when they get it right.

Kasteer, what this means in a nutshell is that if the 2nd is "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd then becomes the true law of the land, binding all states equally, and not just the Federal gov't as is technically the case now. There is hardly any doubt in my mind that this will happen, after which the"gun-free zones that the liberal states have become will have to change their ways or be found out of compliance with the supreme law of the land. There will stil be many important battles to be fought even after that, but incorporation will be an historic "biggie" for all of us on the side of freedom and civil rights. Check out some of the articles by Don Kates and Clayton Cramer.

imported post

I don't enjoy being pessimistic, and certainly not just for the fun of it, but in this case, the case of our two Senators from Virginia, I can logically arrive at no other conclusion.

Remember how sneaky and clever politicians are. When the House passed their version of the health care disaster a couple weeks ago, and as is the case with most other major legislation, it is all a big show. Pelosi knew she had enough votes to pass it, and as the vote approached she started handing out permission to cast "no" votes to the Members who would be the most damaged by a "yes" vote. Then they made a huge show of the fact that it passed, and with 5 votes to spare. What suckers we all are, they must think. I personally think the only reason they had 5 to spare is that Pelosi was afraid that 2 or 3 rogue Members might bail on her.

Same way with this brief. These Senators are not dumb. They are either lawyers, or they have lawyers on their staff and in their war rooms. They can read the writing on the wall. I think it's fairly obvious that in one way or another, this court case is going to come down on our side in a substantial way, and having studied the case at hand and the recent precedents, everyone knows this.

So they're going to lose this round, and as we have all come to know from the White House staff, "never waste a crisis".

So they get all the "moderate" Senators to sign on with this brief which gives them a bright "moderate flag" to waive back home for their "friends" in the NRA.

But they think we're stupid. They think we're too dumb to remember that despite an outpouring of opposition, both of our fine Senators voted to confirm both Eric Holder, the most anti-gun Attorney General in the history of the country, as well as Sonya Sotomayor, who has a long track record of rulings that were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. (What other profession grants a promotion when you make the wrong decision in something like 6 out of 7 major cases?) And she's proud of her racist roots, claiming that she as a Latina Woman can make better rulings than others of different ethnicity and gender.

No, I will not be writing the two Senators a letter of thanks. I don't want to give them even more to laugh at than they already have.

TFred

imported post

There is no question that our two Senators are both strong on the 2A.

There is also no question that they have a different opinion from TFRED on health care, and Holder and Sotomayor. (Or at least I hope so, looking at some of Webb's recent procedural votes on health care). But to my mind those are not really gun issues.

This is not political "clever"ness --this is where these guys are at.

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

I've already written Webb and Warner some blistering letters about their support of the health care monstrosity, but I can still be big enough to praise them when they get it right.

Kasteer, what this means in a nutshell is that if the 2nd is "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd then becomes the true law of the land, binding all states equally, and not just the Federal gov't as is technically the case now. There is hardly any doubt in my mind that this will happen, after which the"gun-free zones that the liberal states have become will have to change their ways or be found out of compliance with the supreme law of the land. There will stil be many important battles to be fought even after that, but incorporation will be an historic "biggie" for all of us on the side of freedom and civil rights. Check out some of the articles by Don Kates and Clayton Cramer.

Click to expand...

...and as we all know originally intended....

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

There is no question that our two Senators are both strong on the 2A.

There is also no question that they have a different opinion from TFRED on health care, and Holder and Sotomayor. (Or at least I hope so, looking at some of Webb's recent procedural votes on health care). But to my mind those are not really gun issues.

This is not political "clever"ness --this is where these guys are at.

Click to expand...

If you think a vote to confirm Eric Holder is a "strong 2A" position, then you must be inhaling all the pot that Clinton claims he did not.

Hawk your crazy someplace else, nobody is buying here.

TFred

imported post

I'm very proud to see that both TN Senators (both Republicans) and all nine ofTN US Rep's (5 R's and 4 D's) co-signed this brief.

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

I've already written Webb and Warner some blistering letters about their support of the health care monstrosity, but I can still be big enough to praise them when they get it right.

Kasteer, what this means in a nutshell is that if the 2nd is "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd then becomes the true law of the land, binding all states equally, and not just the Federal gov't as is technically the case now. There is hardly any doubt in my mind that this will happen, after which the"gun-free zones that the liberal states have become will have to change their ways or be found out of compliance with the supreme law of the land. There will stil be many important battles to be fought even after that, but incorporation will be an historic "biggie" for all of us on the side of freedom and civil rights. Check out some of the articles by Don Kates and Clayton Cramer.

Click to expand...

Dutch, Thanks for the background info. Now that I know what this means, I'm very eager to see it happen! I've always had a hard time understanding how different states interpret and rule on the 2A. It will be GREAT to see 2A applied equally.

imported post

TFred wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

There is no question that our two Senators are both strong on the 2A.

There is also no question that they have a different opinion from TFRED on health care, and Holder and Sotomayor. (Or at least I hope so, looking at some of Webb's recent procedural votes on health care). But to my mind those are not really gun issues.

This is not political "clever"ness --this is where these guys are at.

Click to expand...

If you think a vote to confirm Eric Holder is a "strong 2A" position, then you must be inhaling all the pot that Clinton claims he did not.

Hawk your crazy someplace else, nobody is buying here.

TFred

Click to expand...

Additionally, they both voted in favor of national park carry, and national CC reciprocity.

I see the Holder vote as something more than a 2A issue . . . .Guess it must be the weed.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

TFred wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

There is no question that our two Senators are both strong on the 2A.

There is also no question that they have a different opinion from TFRED on health care, and Holder and Sotomayor. (Or at least I hope so, looking at some of Webb's recent procedural votes on health care). But to my mind those are not really gun issues.

This is not political "clever"ness --this is where these guys are at.

Click to expand...

If you think a vote to confirm Eric Holder is a "strong 2A" position, then you must be inhaling all the pot that Clinton claims he did not.

Hawk your crazy someplace else, nobody is buying here.

TFred

Click to expand...

Additionally, they both voted in favor of national park carry, and national CC reciprocity.

I see the Holder vote as something more than a 2A issue . . . .Guess it must be the weed.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that I have no doubt you really don't see a problem here. A classic "true believer".

Let me dig up an Alan Gura quote: "If congress can't take a gun away and President Obama can't take a gun away but the mayor takes your gun away, you still don't have a gun."

Voting "pro-2A" all day long, except for confirming the AG who would take your gun as fast as he could legally figure out how to, still leaves you with no gun to carry in the National Park, and no gun to carry concealed in the other states, and a pair of Senators who grin real big and stupid while boasting that they they voted almost entirely "pro-2A".

TFred

imported post

This issue goes way beyond 2A. Because 1A is already Incorporated, the SC would set an absolutely terrible precedent if they Affirm. It would be as if they get todecideand pick and choose which ones of our Rights should be incorporated and which ones should not be.

imported post

kasteer71 wrote:

Ignorance here... What does this mean?

Click to expand...

The short version: If the SC reverses the Court of Appeals and incorporate the 2A, our 2A right applies and is enforcedat both the Federal and State level. Some of the Chicago gun laws would be considered unconstitutional oncethis happens.

Do a search on the internet about Incorporating Bill of Rights if you want more details.

imported post

Chuckles wrote:

This issue goes way beyond 2A. Because 1A is already Incorporated, the SC would set an absolutely terrible precedent if they Affirm. It would be as if they get todecideand pick and choose which ones of our Rights should be incorporated and which ones should not be.

Click to expand...

As it stands, they do get to pick and choose. For example, the VIIth Amendment:

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, . . . ."

This right is not incorporated against the States, who can limit jury trials in state courts to considerably higher amounts of money.

imported post

Chuckles wrote:

kasteer71 wrote:

Ignorance here... What does this mean?

Click to expand...

The short version: If the SC reverses the Court of Appeals and incorporate the 2A, our 2A right applies and is enforcedat both the Federal and State level. Some of the Chicago gun laws would be considered unconstitutional oncethis happens.

Do a search on the internet about Incorporating Bill of Rights if you want more details.

Click to expand...

I did a search and read a couple good write-ups on this. Interesting how some of the Bill of Rights are applied, while others are not... Pick which ones we want kinda atmosphere, instead of they all apply equally.

Thanks for the reply!