CPHV amicus brief in Emerson

[bookkie]

Found another brief in the emerson case, this one filed by Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, chaired by Ms. Brady. Thought everyone would like to read it. I'm only posting the link as it is rather long. One of the contributors to it is Henigan. He is well known for his law review articles espousing the collectivist view. He starts right out with an obvious lie. Claiming that Emerson brandished a gun before the trial and that, that was what Emerson was charged with. Won't take the court long to figure that one out.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/legalaction/emerson.htm

happy reading. (have barf bag handy)



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought this little gem in the brief was particularly amusing: "It is undisputed that the Second Amendment was - like the other portions of the Bill of Rights - intended simply to restrain the power of the federal government against the states."

Now, think about this; They claim that their position, which has been rejected by virtually every constitutional scholar who has taken the time to actually study the issue, is "undisputed". What cast iron gall! Especially when they know that the court is going to be presented with positively REAMS of law review articles disputing exactly that. Is it at all possible that Henigan actually FORGOT that he was writting a legal brief instead of an op-ed piece, and that we'd have the chance to respond to what he said, and document any lies he told?

But even better, consider the implications of these words: "... like the other portions of the Bill of Rights..." They're not merely denying that the SECOND amendment guarantees an individual right, they're denying that ANY part of the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights!!!

Gentlemen, (And ladies!) we have been blessed beyond all reason with inept enemies!

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

 

[Dennis]

Please do not underestimate our "inept" enemies. They have infringed the Second Amendment nearly out of existence. They have made firearms the next "cigarette". Combined with other factors, they have made the practice of teaching our kids to shoot a much, much rarer occasion than a couple decades ago.

When comparing our rights in 1999, please do not use 1998 as a base-line. Try using 1950 to see what we've lost.

Our enemies are winning the war on our Bill of Rights. To me, that takes them out of the "inept" category.

Now, if you are referring only to the VPC brief, you have a point. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's see what the courts decide before we celebrate our "unwon" victories.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited October 27, 1999).]

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Dennis: Well, yes, I WAS refering to the VPC brief. Although I could make a case that our enemies in general aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. (To steal a song lyric I just heard on the radio.) They haven't had to be all that clever, really; They're rolling a rock down hill. How brilliantly persuasive do you have to be to convince a politician to usurp power?

I don't want to get all Marxist, but it really isn't in the "class interest" of politicians to defend our right to be able to defend ourselves against them. What do they get out of the Second amendment? They're the elite these laws aren't enforced against anyway; Outside of the most ultra strict regime of gun control imaginable, THEY can have guns! And it's not like they need to pack heat to defend themselves; They've got bodyguards. No, all the Second amendment does to them is arm potential assasins!

So the gun control movement has been begging the government to do what the government would want to do anyway, all things considered. WE are the ones with the tough selling job!

And then there's their OTHER big advantage, the fact that they control most media outlets. I hardly think that's something they planned! (Though now that they've got that control, I do believe they're working consciously to maintain it.) I remember noticing in college that the people in the liberal arts tracks really did seem more "liberal" (Read: Leftist) than the rest of the student body, while finding a left wing engineering student was seriously difficult! I think there's some common psycological factor at work here, which directs leftists to carreers in talking, and conservative/libertarian minded people to careers in doing. So the left naturally wound up in control of the media.

But, no, I don't think they're strategic geniuses, to have achieved as much as they have. OUR leaders, on the other hand, must have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time!

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

 

[DC]

Dennis makes an excellent point. The Left is positively brilliant and skilled at narrowing the focus and convincing everyone(including us) to view the same tiny picture. They do all they can to prevent a wide view.
Example: At any time all current proposed gun legislation is made to look as if it is a zero sum start...i.e the first.....and if only the pro-gun people would compromise, then they (the Left) would be satisfied. 6 months later they start the same pitch and convince the majority to buy into it


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know that that's brilliance, DC. Could they get people to buy such a line if we had equal access to the media? They know they can get away with the most transparent lies, because we won't be allowed to dispute them. They don't need logic or facts, because we can't argue back.

It's easy to seem brilliant when you're debating somebody with a rag stuffed in their mouth. But that's not eloquence, it's power.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

 

[DC]

Brett...
The brilliance is the method and the success in getting people to believe these ludicrous lies.
We are losing because we underestimate their drive, success and methods. We also seem to have a problem with acknowledging talent and skill in our opponents.

The early Wehrmacht moves in WW2 were brilliant...doesn't mean that should be taken as support and agreement. We should be learning from our opponents, but we don't.

Why haven't the Pro-gun organizations teamed up to buy a major newspaper or Network? Westinghouse owns NBC....with the massive amount of money the Pro-gun orgs have, it could be doable...I'd support a doubling or tripling of NRA et al member dues if they did something like that. We recognize where we are out-manuvered but we do nothing to rectify it. The anti's effectively combat us at every turn because they want to win, are absolutely committed to winning and like all wars, winning is the only thing that matters

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[416Rigby]

I agree with both of you....

Brett, you are so right whan you say that the leftist media are in fact arguing with someone with a sock in their mouths.

Look, the average Joe Schmoe in this Country now believes that:

1) 13 kids a day are killed by gun-violence;
2) Guns are far more likely to harm the owner in an accident than to help him or her defuse a life-threatening situation in self-defence;
3) If a murderous rapist breaks into your house, just call 911;
4) Owning a gun is more morally reprehensible than watching helplessly while your wife ig gang-raped - after all, the rapists are probably victims too, in their own right;
5) Rosie O'Donnell (or however you spell the b**ch's name) has done more for America than Ronald Reagan;

All lies, which somehow became "truths".

It's up to us to put them back into the garbage-can of ideas, right where they belong!

What they are not counting is the fact that, in America, there is an above-average, entreprenurial individual for every inept, TV-watching Joe Schmoe.

But, what I am a loss at, is how to fight back. Besides voting, how else do you help refute these myths? How do you make yourself heard?

How do you spit out the sock and speak up?

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.

 

[Covert Mission]

Henigan, HCI, et al may not get too far in this case with their collectivist views on the 2nd. Read this excerpt from USA Today, regarding widley respected constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe's latest, clearly stated, view of the 2nd in his new book:

“Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals
By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news. But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough to anger gun-control advocates.

"I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

Tribe's views on the Constitution are of more than passing importance.

Earlier editions of Tribe's treatise have been quoted more than 50 times in Supreme Court opinions - by liberal and conservative justices - and by the top courts of India, Germany, Russia and Canada, among others.
-cont’d-”

So, he's a traitor to the HCI cause now! Even if I disagree with some of his politics and views on gun control, I commend him for his honest, politically incorrect, statement. Will the truth win out?

 

[Covert Mission]

Sorry... I somehow double-posted. It's below, but deleted here.

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited October 27, 1999).]

 

[Covert Mission]

I try to frame the gun debate in other issues, to illustrate the hypocrisy and hysteria, for example, this e-mail i just sent to friends:

From today's headlines: 1 in 5 Americans is obese, and obesity related disease KILLS 300,000 Americans (or rather, TEN times the # of all guns deaths incl. accidentals, murders, and suicides). Ban Cheetos! Ban Ding-Dongs! Ban fat! 50% of African-American women are obese. Do you find this shocking?

Seriously, these are choices people are consciously making (use of drugs and booze aside)— to eat bad foods in quantity and even feed them to their kids— and which are aided by Nabisco, General Mills, etc., who KNOW that their products are nutritionally bankrupt and fat-saturated. What about product liability lawsuits for the makers of these legal foods, which are contributing to the slow deaths of people? We have all the scientific data we need to inform people on healthy eating habits, and what they shouldn't eat much of.

You might say this is hyperbole, but it's not. I'm illustrating the point that the world is full of risks (owning a gun, eating Cheetos), and people make conscious decisions to do things that might have risk to them and.or others. Like driving a car. The difference between guns and Cheetos is that between 1-2 million times a year people use their guns in defense of themselves from criminals, preventing untold death and injury. I can't recall any lives being saved by Cheetos.

The world is a potentially unsafe, imperfect place. There are things we can do to make it safer, like EDUCATING people about their diet, or the importance of keeping their guns safely locked up. Not necessarily by banning the guns or the Cheetos or the swimming pools kids drown in, or other things that have value if not abused/misused.

When Cheetos are banned, obese people will eat Twinkies?
-----
Unfortunately, you'll never see the day when the media goes on the rampage, with nationwide headlines proclaiming "800 Killed Today by Fat! BAN FAT" It's not sexy enough, when it's happening day in and out.

Did you know that more people commit suicide due to gambling-related mental problems/depression than from alcohol or drugs? Put that in perspective, when MANY states have sanctioned gambling, from the Lottery to full-scale gambling resorts. I've read that the social costs (treating the resulting substance abuse, spousal abuse, bankruptcies, divorces, etc) from gambling COST $3 for every dollar the state takes in in gambling revenue. In other words, the States are subsidizing this misery caused by gambling. Not a word about this though, and last I looked, there was no constitutional amendment protecting gambling. When was anyones life saved by gambling? You can say that guns save lives, and know it's true

When you enlighten people that there are many health related and social problems with enormous costs happening in this country, that people and politicians are turning a blind eye to, maybe they'll think differently about the gun issue. they must understand the hypocrisy. It's truly a grassroots effort to win hearts and minds, though. We have our work cut out.

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited October 27, 1999).]

 

[Dennis]

Rigby,

You make several good points in your post. Then you ask THE leading
question:

“But, what I am a loss at, is how to fight back. Besides voting, how else do
you help refute these myths? How do you make yourself heard?... How do
you spit out the sock and speak up?”

I’m doing what I can to “spit out the sock”. I’m a life member of NRA and
LEAA and an annual member of... of... (Jeez, I don’t even know how
many!) close to a dozen other organizations.

Most of my memberships are pro-gun - for obvious reasons.

A couple memberships are in notoriously anti-gun organizations where I
fight from within, argue and cause friction (if you can believe that ) and
write to legislators saying that the organization does NOT speak for ALL its
members.
(I’ll bet AARP honchos hate my guts! I always send them a “courtesy
copy” when I write legislators explaining why AARP is full of crappola!)

From time to time I write my U.S. Senators and Representative, my state
Senators and Representative, other legislators and government officials,
newspaper and magazine editors, individuals, etc.

I write the American Legion and the VFW from time to time to remind
them that the importance of flag they hold so dear is as a reminder of the
value of the Constitution - including the Bill of Rights and specifically the
Second Amendment. By God, I let them hear from me rather strongly
when I feel the Constitution is being ignored! Trust me on THAT one!!!

Any article I read, I try to comment on if they address our rights or our
RKBA. If they write pro-gun, I support ‘em. If they write anti-gun, I
tactfully explain why their head is fixed in their transverse colon. I’ve
even awarded some anti-gun folks a free annual membership in the Glass
Navel Society! (They must have a glass navel - that’s the only way they
could see daylight! )
The biggest effort, however is what we’re discussing on other threads - the
vote. I’ll leave that to the other threads....
-------
Covert Mission,

You ask the question that truly frightens me, “Will the truth win out?”
I truly don’t know. But if we lose, I simply must be able to look at myself
in the mirror and say, “They may have beaten me, but I put up a hell of a
fight! And it ain’t over YET!”

I no longer can roll over and “play dead”. I believed our government
officials for so many, many years. After that, I went along with them
because I figured that it must be I who was wrong. After all, they were
“on-scene” and I was overseas. When I came home to the U.S. and saw
how our government nearly destroyed our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I
got angry. Real angry! And I will no longer abide by the “to get along -
go along” philosophy.

The fight is on, buddy! And I’m in it!
Every person, every organization, every group, every legislator at any
level who threatens to infringe the Second Amendment is my sworn
opponent.

So long as I am able to type, I will fight these freedom-killing monsters
until I win or die. “And that’s a fact, Jack!”

Join us who fight for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Not just for ourselves but for our children and children’s children.
Win back for them what our Founding Fathers created for us; what so
many of our countrymen fought and died for; what WE are obligated
morally to win back.

For God and our Constitution!

Stick it to ‘em! RKBA!

 

[DC]

You get politically involved.

This isn't just about guns kids...its the whole Socialist agenda.

The Feds, State or some local government going after your water and property rights.
Your local school board pushing thru yet another bond issue without detailing exactly how the money will be spent; and getting really pissed off that you won't just take their word for it and that they have to even go through something as stupid as a public vote
Your local school district deciding that the way board members isn't advantageous to the seat of power and putting an initiative on the ballot to change it....jeez, there's that pesky citizen vote control again.
Your local council wanting to raise property taxes to develop an area to attract new homeowners...no place for the newbies to work? Don't bother us with pesky details...besides, new industry is ugly and not in our aesthetic plans.

Etc ad nauseum.

You fight them for every single millimeter and make them bleed buckets for coming out from under the rock.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

 

[KAM_Indianapolis]

I don't know about anyone else, but you can leave trying to understand the law to lawyers.

You can leave understanding my rights to myself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."

 

[Christopher]

KAM,

When it goes on to list the offenses of ol' George, look and see how many parallels you can draw to Klinton. Scary.

 

[Futo Inu]

Regarding CPHV's claim in their brief that it's "undisputed" that the second is not incorporated by the fourteenth as against the states. Put aside for a moment that this legal question is not even at issue in Emerson. I understand Dennis's and others's fears about the anti's arguments here, because we've learned how selling lies to the dumbed down public by the antis is quite easy these days. But take heart, because the Fifth Circuit judges are no dummies, quite unlike the public. While it seems the public gets dumber and dumber by the day, strangely enough, the top thinkers remain generally at intelligence levels above or at least equal to those great thinkers of the past, such as Justice Story, etc., in my limited experience. That "undisputed" statement is one of the most demonstrably false statement I've ever seen in a brief. The writer loses ALL credibility at that point with a judge with any brains at all. Clearly the law in this area is "disputed". Judges don't like to be lied to.

 

[Covert Mission]

Dennis: While I too, am a member of : NRA, GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, CRPA, and GSSF, and more to come, I applaud your efforts. Truly. I fax, write, phone, and e-mail as much as I possibly have time to (and laugh at the replies, such as the one from Feinstein which said "We'll just have to agree to disagree." LIKE HELL. I want you fired!), while trying to stay informed here and via other means. It's sometimes exhausting, but I KNOW WE'RE RIGHT!

I like your strategy in joining anti-gun groups, and then dissenting from within. I will try that one for sure.

My biggest fantasy? That I had a billion $$ to spare, to use in this battle. 2nd fantasy: that someone like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates would come out of the gun closet, and join our ranks, using their vast wealth to spread the truth. Then I wake up.

 

[416Rigby]

Dennis,

What I meant is the rethorical question "what do we COLLECTIVELY do?" I know that the greatest majority of us is active in many organizations (although I hadn't thought of your idea of disrupting from within).

But my puzzle remains this: besides voting, how will our collective voice find its way into the mainstream?

When are we going to have a pro-gun James Carville talking, uninterrupted on network TV to millions of people, and how do we get there?

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.

 

[Dennis]

Aha! NOW I see what you meant.

Well, I know this kinda steps on your toes so I apologize for that up front.
But I don't think the movement to re-institute the Second Amendment,
etc. will occur until we make it a noticeable priority.

We try to do that with our memberships and correspondence (as we’ve all
noted) but then we destroy our efforts by voting for the same old thing over
and over again.

So, with apologies for suggesting something you can not abide, I am trying
to join others to create a political *need* for a leader who can effectively
voice our views and fight for our values.

Unfortunately, there is ALWAYS some sort of blockade to effective
representation of the Second Amendment.

If elections are over, the politicians ignore us.
If elections are upon us, we must vote against some greater evil.

So, we can not influence the Democrats because they don’t need us.
And we can not influence the Republicans because we vote for them
anyway.
The Democrats and Republicans have become the American ruling class.

(Quietly and calmly.) That’s why I see no way to re-institute our
Constitution with either major party - unless we scare them into thinking
they may lose their jobs (to a third party).

But, to the best recollection of my CRS memory, every recent election has
been about voting “against” someone - and the greatest loser so far has
been the Constitution.

Now, this is not a challenge. It’s more of a plea for ideas.

Working “within” the Republican Party to bring about change is an option I
have NO faith in at all. The power players of the GOP hold too much
power over the Party and probably will do so until they join our dearly
departed Senator Chaffee. By the time such an option becomes “viable”
we will have lost all power over the government.

I know of no other (peaceful) option than voting the current rascals out of
office - and let’s stick to peaceful options, OK? (Skip “the revolution” for
now.)

I surely would appreciate other options for discussion - probably on a
different thread.

 

[DC]

Dennis...read my above post

We get involved at the local level...make any and every elective office a war...a bloody war. Get involved and know the issues....oppose every single socialist concept no matter how benign....make these candidates spell out in detail what they intend to do. Always hold their feet to the fire. Do not ever forget...once elected to high office, these people get a retirement package most of us can only dream of...these clowns win the damn lotto when elected. Make them earn every single penny

The good (and bad) thing about politics is that each level depends on the lower level...your county supervisor was once a city councilman or school board member...they move up to state assembly or Congress, etc...their superior depends on their support, etc. These creatures are created at our level...we (figuratively) knew these people at one time. We treat them like the employees they are, not like this BS American faux royalty.

A few months ago I posted this question:
when I was a kid we used to get monthy mail from our Congress and Senatorial persons...sure it was PR, but it did tell about what they did, who they saw from the home district, etc....they knew that we were their boss. I can not remember the last time I got any sort of thing...when and why did they stop sending reports?
Arrogance? Recognition that the voting public are lazy inattentive morons who deserve the servitude we are being forced into?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!