Red State Dems Against Gun Rights
Amicus Brief With Majority Support from House and Senate Bypassed by "Conservative Dems"
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
VP Cheney authored an amicus brief to the Court agreeing with the individual rights view of the Second Amendment and urging the Court to affirm the DC Circuit's application of the highest standard of review. This brief was joined by 55 Senators and 250 Representatives, thus representing the majority view of the Democratically-controlled legislature. Some Democrats joined most Republicans in urging the Court to protect the civil right to protect one's self.
However, a number of Democrat representatives of conservative states have not signed on to this majority view. Readers from these states and districts should think about writing letters to the editor and calling these representatives to see why they are at odds with the majority of the country and most likely their districts.
SENs up in 2008:
Pryor (AR)
Harkin (IA)
Landrieu (LA)
Levin (MI)
Rockfeller (WV)
SENs not in 2008:
Nelson (FL)
Bayh (IN)
Stabenow (MI)
McCaskill (MO)
Reid (NV)
Dorgan (ND)
Conrad (ND)
Byrd (WV)
Reps running for SEN:
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Also note that these Senators supported the individual rights view: McCain (AZ), Specter (PA), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Coleman (MN), Smith (OR), Graham (SC), Feingold (WI), Salazar (CO) but not Warner (VA).
Also, if you are an enterprising web-savvy believer in the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, a new web ad pointing out the above candidate's lack of support for that position sent to any other supporters of the individual rights view could help in the 2008 Senate elections in CO, NM, WV, MI, AR, IN, and LA.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Pres-08: Election Analysis of Where We Stand — Comments (30) »
Red State Dems Against Gun Rights 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is that MI is a pretty pro-gun rights state despite it's love of anti-business Democrat reps.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
You're in the non-Pittsburg/non-Philly part of Pennsylvania.
Once you get into the Upper Peninsula, you'd better know how to play euchre if you don't have a firearm displayed prominently on your hip.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Get outside of Detroit Metro, and support for gun rights is incredibly strong. Inside it, on the other hand... well, there's a reason why those of us from West Michigan consider Detroit to be practically another state...
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
and yet she still got elected. Problem is, she's proven herself fairly fiscally responsible. She is one of a few Ds that have sworn off earmarks...and she did that last year as a freshman.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
There is exactly one Kentucky Congresscritter not onboard with the amicus brief: John Yarmuth (D), who ousted Ann Northup in 2006.
I have words, but I don't want to be banned.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I believe the White House did, but not this amicus brief. But I could be wrong.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
The NRA shold do one but I'll also think about storyboarding one. I have a pretty good idea of how it should be presented. Thanks for the rundown, it'll help.
having the case proceed as is for affirmation. The DOJ asked that the case be remanded on the issue of what scrutiny should apply to such cases.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The DoJ argued 1) there is an individual right (and this is the first administration to officially take that position), 2) restrictions should be analyzed under an intermediate scrutiny, and 3) remand to lower court to apply intermediate scrutiny to this case.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, you do a great job bro.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I don't follow the rationale for applying intermediate rather than heightened scrutiny to limitations on a constitutional right, though. Which means I need to read the full opinion, of course :)
The most common examples are governmental discrimination based on race is analyzed under the strict scrutiny but governmental discrimination based on gender is analyzed under an intermediate standard.
Why? I dunno. But it's not a new idea.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Well turn me upside down and paint me blue - Russ Feingold signed this brief? RUSS FEINGOLD?! The man would be the socialist in Congress if it weren't for the fact that there is a real-live Socialist in the Senate (Bernie Sanders). He hasn't much concern for First Amendment rights in political speech, but he believes in a robust Second Amendment?
Whatever it is that injected some sense into the man - get more of it to him.
the very simple issue.
DC has "Home Rule" only to the extent that Congress gives it such rule. All DC legislation goes to Congress for review as part of the deal.
Thus, these 250 Congressmen and 55 Senators have every right (and given their position and their oaths, the obligation) to pass simple legislation that eliminates the DC ban and that denies the District government the right to pass any further such bans.
Why, if they have a majority in Congress supporting the decision to strike the ban, are they leaving this to the Court to decide?
Yes, they could change DC law but some of them are surely conflicted between believing in Home Rule and believing in what amount of gun control is Constitutional. This amicus brief is about how the court should evaluate a claim that 2nd amendment rights are violated. The answer to that question will have much wider application than just to DC law.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Inside joke?
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
"Spelling is the hobgoblin of puny minds." - Gamecock
great to see a comment from you gal
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Who are the congressman and women in red district that you think are vulnerable
That's about 30 open seats to defend, folks. Shadegg's district is not bright red either.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
(article requires subscription)
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/22046-1.html
You have Michigan listed as a "Red State". Since when is Michigan a Red State?
It has a Democrat Governor, two Democrat Senators, and went "blue" the last two Presidential elections.