search
top

“Go Time!”

That was Uncle’s statement to me in an e-mail, in reaction to the Supreme Court agreeing to take Heller.  What kind of things would be useful to do between now and then?  I have some ideas for our gun rights organizations to consider.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-political, but we all know that’s a half-truth.  The fact is, The Courts in the latter part of the last century were very reluctant to interfere with the exercise of legislative power.  We want the justices on The Court to have some idea what the sentiment of Congress is.

What I would propose is to lobby Congress to pass a non-binding (meaning not law) resolution stating that it’s the opinion of the lawmakers that the second amendment protects an individual right.  That would put the legislative branch in agreement with the executive branch, and give any possible fence sitters on the court some breathing room.  It would also serve to get certain politicians on record (*cough* Hillary *cough*) as to how they stand on the second amendment.

Why would Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress support such a measure?   Because if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way in the Heller case, they can kiss goodbye their ambitions for taking the White House in 2008.  Gun control will be on top of the agenda, and whether their nominee is Hillary or Obama, a Republican who touts that he will put conservative justices on The Court will look a lot better in comparison to either of those two.  Democrats are not going to want this issue to come to a boil in 2008, so I think they could be convinced to pass something like this.

What say you all?

9 Responses to ““Go Time!””

  1. Greg Morris says:

    Wow, now that’s a good idea. Members of Congress, particularly those running for president, are still too scared to even consider discussing something like this though. I’m not sure even thousands of letters and phone calls can get something like this accomplished.

  2. kaveman says:

    MY PHONE BILL THIS MONTH WILL BE HUGE!

    I’ll be calling my reps when I get home.

  3. Matt says:

    I would support it wholeheartedly. Given that Congress in the past have put forth bills that state the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, this shouldn’t be too hard of a stretch.

    At worst, Congress is wrong if the Supremes rule against us.

    Whether the Democrats like it or not, as a result of this the issue of gun control is going to be on the agenda. It’s unavoidable now.

    It isn’t every day you get to witness history being made and know it. This is huge. And I’m scared out of my mind and excited at the same time.

  4. kaveman says:

    I get emails from Sarah Brady, here’s her latest…

    Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country’s history.

    Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our “friend of the court” brief.

    We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

    This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30. And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!

    We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to protect America’s gun laws. Please give today.

    Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

    This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged. The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their communities.

    If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

    …from the long-standing machine gun ban…to the 1968 Gun Control Act…to the Brady background check law.

    …to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

    If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby. But now we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. Please give generously.

    Sincerely,

    Sarah Brady, Chair

    Is it just me or does the fact that they don’t even have $50,000 dollars on hand make ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

  5. I’ve said it before. I think this court case is a bad idea, and Allahpundit is probably right.

  6. bullbore says:

    Representatives contacted…we’ll see how it goes. I am not expecting much of levin or stabenow. Dingell has been a staunch supporter of 2A rights though.

  7. illspirit says:

    Good idea. Just looking at the summaries for the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, the House version (H.R.1399) had 239 cosponsors, and the Senate version (S.1001) had 43.

    Or, even if Pelosi and Reid won’t let any new resolution of the sort onto the floor, the cosponsor list on those two old bills might provide some weight on their own.

  8. Ian Argent says:

    That’d leave a mark, all right

  9. magus says:

    “What I would propose is to lobby Congress to pass a non-binding (meaning not law) resolution stating that it’s the opinion of the lawmakers that the second amendment protects an individual right.”

    Complied with:

    S. 397 [109th]: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

    (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

top