Rep. Virgil Goode To The Bush White House: Withdraw Your Brief

[Almtnman]

Rep. Virgil Goode To The Bush White House: Withdraw Your Brief

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) has sent the following letter to the White House asking them to undo the huge harm they have caused the Second Amendment with the brief they filed in the DC gun ban case.

-------------------------------------

January 22, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of constitutional review.

If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides
-- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.

I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Virgil Goode

-------------------------------------

Rep. Goode is following up his action by circulating the letter among his colleagues. He is asking other members of Congress to add their signatures in anticipation of sending President Bush another copy of the letter.

Your help is needed immediately to convince your Representative to join with Rep. Goode.

Please go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message urging your Rep. to be a part of this important initiative. If you prefer to contact your Representative in another fashion, here is the text we are using:

Dear Representative:

Please join with Rep. Virgil Good in signing a letter to the White House urging the President to withdraw the Solicitor General's very ill-advised brief in the D.C. gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.

Gun Owners of America will be keeping me posted about the members of the House who have joined with Representative Goode.

Thank you very much.


****************************

Of course, GOA is actively working the Heller case as well. In fact, just today our legal and educational arm, Gun Owners Foundation, officially notified the Court of its intent to file an amicus brief.
We'll be certain to make that brief available to you as soon as it is filed. In the meantime, last week GOA issued a press release blasting the Solicitor General's action that was picked up by numerous media outlets across the country. The press release is posted at http://www.gunowners.org/pr0801.htm on the GOA website.

[Almtnman]

More Pressure Needed To Convince Bush To Withdraw Brief

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Friday, January 25, 2008

The Bush administration has continued veering toward gun control.
You know it is bad when The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence salutes the administration's support for gun control.

Why would anti-gunners praise the Bush administration? For one, signing the first gun control legislation in over a decade, the Veterans Disarmament Act (H.R. 2640). For another, the very anti-gun brief the Solicitor General (the Justice Department's lawyer) filed in the DC gun ban case, D.C. v. Heller.

As you know, Rep. Virgil Goode is rounding up other members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join with him on his letter to the President asking him to withdraw that brief.

Gun Owners of America has taken the lead in building public awareness of the Solicitor General's action, and the need to urge all members of Congress to support Rep. Goode's efforts.

We know it is imperative for the NRA to encourage their members to weigh in with their representatives on behalf of Rep. Goode.

It would be very helpful if you -- and as many gun owners as you can recruit to help -- would call the NRA and urge them to publicly encourage members of Congress to join with Rep. Goode by signing his letter to the White House.

The toll-free number to call at the NRA is 800-392-8683. To maximize your effort, please call rather than e-mail.

For your information, the GOA press release that explains what is wrong with the administration's brief is here:

http://www.gunowners.org/pr0801.htm

The D.C. v. Heller case is by far the most important Second Amendment court case of our lifetime. Thank you for doing all you can to help secure a pro-gun outcome.

[deltecs]

Just sent a public opinion message to all 3 Alaskan Congressional delegation.  Now we'll see what the effect is.

[deltecs]

How many other members Congressmen have done this?  I requested my Congressman Don Young to ask that the Solicitor General withdraw his brief in the DC v Heller case before the Supreme Court.  I got an email back from him and is posted below.


January 31,  2008

Dear Mr. Williams ,

 

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the 1976 law restricting gun ownership in the District of Columbia . It is always good to hear from you, and I appreciate this opportunity to respond.

 

Throughout my career in Congress, I have supported numerous bills and resolutions to protect a law-abiding citizen's right to own firearms.  I share your belief that the original intention of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and I will continue to defend that right, which is why I signed onto a letter to President Bush asking him to withdraw the brief that the Solicitor General had submitted in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

 

As you are aware, the Supreme Court has elected to hear a case in which several D.C. residents have challenged the District's laws that essentially prohibit armed self-defense in the home. District of Columbia vs. Heller represents the first review since 1939 of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms rather than the collective. The Solicitor General's brief wrongly argued that a ban could be upheld, so long as it was "reasonable", an argument that would allow even more gun control, infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

 

Also, you may be pleased to learn that several of my colleagues and I signed and submitted to the Supreme Court an "amicus curiae" brief, affirming the right of individual D.C. citizens to keep and bear arms. The brief urges the Supreme Court to overturn the gun ban.

 

This brief is part of a long tradition in which Congress has spoken on the Second Amendment in general, and the D.C. gun ban in particular. I am a co-sponsor of the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, H.R. 1288, which would restore the right of D.C. residents to register and own handguns. In 2005, I voted for an amendment to the Housing and Urban Development spending bill to prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce the D.C. gun ban. In 2004, I also supported a measure to repeal various firearm provisions of the D.C. Code, including those contested in the Heller case. Please rest assured that I will continue to monitor this issue closely. Like you, I believe the Second Amendment and our fundamental and guaranteed right to keep and bear arms are a critical part of our Constitution and our nation's history.  The Constitution and our founding documents have served our country for well over 200 years, and I will continue to ensure laws are weighed and formed against the backdrop of these precious documents.

 

Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue.  If you haven't already, I would encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter at http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm and my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RepDonYoung .   Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues.  If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG


Congressman for All Alaska

 

[deltecs]

Finally our Congressmen are doing something about restrictive firearms laws.  It is an election year for all Representatives and I predicted the 2nd Amendment would have substantial influence on the voters.  It appears to be accurate.  This coming from the same Congress, which enacted these restrictions.  I copied the entire article for clarification of the issue.

Fox News
February 14, 2008

Washington, D.C. — When the Washington, D.C. City Council enacted the toughest gun-control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers — according to what they said at the time — believed they were making our nation’s capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably.

Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to both make our capital safer — and ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.

No matter how well intentioned, the D.C. firearms statute has been unfathomable from the start. On its face, the law bans handguns and requires rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. While it allows business owners to use a firearm to protect their cash registers at their stores, they cannot use that same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes. Individuals who protect federal officials and property in the District with firearms are not permitted to provide similar protection for themselves and their families in their own domiciles.

In fact, the case that the Supreme Court will hear, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by Mr. Dick Heller, a security guard. In carrying out his duties, Mr. Heller carries a handgun on Federal property. However, when he sought to register the same weapon to safeguard his home, he was denied. Mr. Heller says the D.C. law has it backwards. "I can protect [federal workers], but at the end of the day they say, 'turn in your gun, you can't protect your home.'" Mr. Heller maintains that disassembled rifles and shotguns are no substitute for handguns, "any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an 'adequate substitute.'"

Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 2-1, that the District’s prohibition was not only unreasonable, it was clearly unconstitutional. Attorneys for the District of Columbia promptly appealed the decision. That is why on March 18, for the first time since 1939, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether such a gun ban for law-abiding citizens is constitutional. Their verdict, expected later this year, will have profound implications for all Americans.

The case has generated a flurry of unprecedented action in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. On January 11, the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed an egregiously weak amicus — friend of the court — brief in the case. The argument, submitted by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, essentially urges the Supremes to waffle on the issue and send the case back to the lower courts.

The DOJ softball didn’t sit well with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). On February 8, she filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Heller and the exercise of his individual rights under the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In her lucid and detailed exposition, Sen. Hutchison accurately points out that the Framers never intended that the word "militia" meant that the right to keep and bear arms was some kind of "collective" right that applied only to a particular group. If that had been their purpose, they would have been satisfied with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

To ensure that that firearms possession was recognized by posterity as an "individual right," the Framers included it as part of the Bill of Rights — an enumeration of every citizen’s personal entitlements: free speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The precise location of those famous words — “the right to keep and bear arms” — provides strong evidence for the Founders’ vision.

To foreclose any doubt where Congress comes down on the issue, Sen. Hutchison has introduced a bill to repeal the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns; repeal registration requirements; and restore the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep a loaded, operable firearm in their homes. Doing less denies the meaning of the words "shall not be abridged."

Her argument was so persuasive that 54 additional senators and 250 members of the House of Representatives — including 68 Democrats — signed on. Vice President Dick Cheney — apparently at odds with the administration’s DOJ did so as well. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with these enlightened members of Congress — and Abraham Lincoln who said, "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."   

Amazing isn't it that in a nationwide poll by USA Today that 98% of the public believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.  Of the 100 US Senators, only 55% of them agree and of those 55, only 9 Democrats.  That means 45 do not. Senator John McCain supported and signed the amicus; neither Obama nor Clinton supported or signed the brief. Of the 435 House members, 232 are Democrats and 199 are Republican with 4 seats vacant.  164 of the 232 House Democrats do not support the 2nd Amendment.  How many are in your election district?  The ones who supported Heller are listed in the Amicus Brief filed and found on SCOTUS website in Merits, D.C. v Heller.  My Congressman kept his promise and signed, did yours?