Bush Administration Disagrees With Court Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban
January 12, 2008
In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement for the Bush administration, it said that the Appeals Court ruling earlier this year declaring the gun ban in Washington, D.C. unconstitutional, was in violation of the Second Amendment. Say what?
According to this brief and explanation, the Bush administration is saying that while the Second Amendment guarantees a person the right to own a gun, the ruling by the Appeals Court might take the power away from the government to control those guns.
I find this very disturbing news. I guess this is proof that the Bush administration does not believe in the Second Amendment and more particularly, they are afraid of losing their power to control the people by limiting their rights - the very reason the Second Amendment was written.
The Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to return the case to the lower court seeking a different ruling that doesn’t declare flatly that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, only those that government wants you to have. And as usual, the Bush administration, like many others that have come before them, are stating that the states and federal government should be able to “reasonably control guns”.
Some think this move is a tactic to prolong the debate in order that the Supreme Court will not make a ruling prior to the November presidential election.
I have to ask, how and why the Bush administration would think such a move would be advantageous to itself or to the republican candidate seeking George Bush’s office…….unless they know something about the Supreme Court’s position on the Second Amendment that the rest of us don’t.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] post by Black Bear Blog and software by Elliott Back This entry is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any [...]
“I guess this is proof that the Bush administration does not believe in the Second Amendment and more particularly, they are afraid of losing their power to control the people by limiting their rights - the very reason the Second Amendment was written.”
Surprise, surprise. Bush has been anti gun from the start, the man said he would sign the assault weapons ban back into law if it crossed his desk. This is proof that the government is afraid of an armed populace. The question is what are they planning to do that makes them worried about armed revolt?
Hi everybody,
I am from Texas, that makes me a great American. Did eveybody tune in to see Billy on are ya smarter than a 5th grader? Those were some taughys. Now let me explain me position. I am sitting down. Guns scare me. Jeb as well. Billy too. So in the interest of the government and scull and bones, they will be illeagle. Thank You For your coroperation.
Sincirely your decider, George W. Bush
I am a good Christian. Guns are 4 the devil. Satan carries scary guns, like super soakers and those ones that go “Pop”! Now I know there is that piece of paper that says you can have them, but I can’t read so it don’t matter. I prefer Highlight For Kids. I don’t always color in the lines. Paper Paste is delicious. Yup, tasty. I pooped myself and have to run!
That was about as mature as a 5th grader
[...] on Saturday I commented on the Bush Administrations brief to the Supreme Court concerning the Appeals Court’s [...]
[...] versus Heller, the well known D.C. handgun case. First, the U.S. Solicitor General, Paul Clement, submitted a brief representing the view of the Bush administration that they didn’t agree with the lower [...]
[...] was the latest act. Remember back in January, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning District of Columbia vs. Heller, said that the [...]
[...] was the latest act. Remember back in January, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning District of Columbia vs. Heller, said that the [...]
I find it interesting to note, that after you posted this, Clement left office, and Cheney opposed the brief. And as the same Washington Post article on Clemet reported:
“Most appeals courts have held it to mean that there is a collective, civic right to gun ownership related to a military purpose. But last spring the D.C. appeals court said that it conveys an individual right to gun ownership.
The Bush administration reaffirmed its long-held support of that position in its brief. But it added that, ‘like other constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions.’”
What the administration is saying is the same as anyone who realizes there should be SOME restraints on gun ownership and use, the same as any other bill of right. The Supreme Court decision is going to shake the bottle when it comes out, and many laws and appeals are probabley going to overwhelm the lower courts until the dust settles…..