McCain Weighs In On Gun Case At Supreme Court
The Swamp:
by Jill Zuckman
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments this morning on whether the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep firearms or whether that right is tied to membership in a militia, one presidential candidate has weighed in on the issue, signing onto a friend of the Court brief.
Sen. John McCain, who is traveling overseas this week as part of an Armed Services congressional delegation, issued a statement calling District of Columbia v. Heller “a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun control rules in the country, banning people from keeping handguns in their homes.
Like Vice President Cheney, McCain has joined in an amicus brief contending that the “clear intent of our Founding Fathers” is to allow individuals the right to keep firearms. This is the first time that the Supreme Court may decide whether there is a Constitutional right protecting gun owners.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
LET US SEE HOW OBAMANATION HANDLES THIS ISSUE.IF HE
March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 amCOMES OUT AGAINST THE 2ND. AMEND., IT COULD BE A MAJOR
DONG STOMP ON HIS PART.
The second amendment was meant not only to give us some personal protection and protection from foreign enemies,but to protect us from OUR OWN government should it become too oppressive.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:54 amyea right. come try and get em
March 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am“The second amendment was meant not only to give us some personal protection and protection from foreign enemies,but to protect us from OUR OWN government should it become too oppressive.” -ArleighB
Exactly.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:51 amThis is why Alexander Hamilton and James Madison made such a passionate argument against the Bill of Rights. They said that having a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because every authority given to the Federal Government was written into the Constitution, and it was meant that any control not given to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution, belongs to the people.
In other words, in the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority to ban firearms. So even if they “undid” the second amendment, the government has no constitutional right to ban firearms.
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
March 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm- Alexander Hamilton “Federalist No. 84″
Good for Senator McCain! +5 Conservative approval! He should take these stands more often.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm