Petition to the Supreme Court

J

Jace

New member
I offer the following verbiage as a starting point to develop a petition to be presented to the Supreme Court. The petition is mentioned in thefiringline.com thread "Peaceful Armed March on Washington."

I envision that we hammer out the language of the petition online and then make the text and instructions available to all interested parties. Individuals would then print copies for signature and mail in the completed petitions as they become filled with signatures.

This would be quick and very inexpensive for individual clubs to do and would allow our voice be heard without the need for the traditional media. It would further our cause to get the petition out to the streets by putting packets in the local shooting and sporting supply stores in your area. Use any outlet where you think you can get the proper attention.

Questions and points that need to be addressed.
1. Will thefiringline.com host the official petition text to give it a proper home and put it as an option to select on the home page?
2. Who exactly will the petition be sent to? · Should they be sent directly to the court?
· How do we guarantee they will be reviewed?
3. What constitutes the proper construction of a petition?
4. What constitutes a valid signature on a petition?
5. Is it necessary to have one official text in order to emphasize solidarity on the issue?
6. Can we get links to the official petition from other pro-gun sites such NRA, GOA, SAF, CCRKBA etc?
7. What else can we do to the spread the petition?

The text of the petition:

1.We the People of the United States, in concern for the deterioration of the constitution of this most perfect union, respectfully request the highest court in this land to affirm the freedom, the rights, and power of the people, as guaranteed by the constitution, and as enumerated and acclaimed in the bill of rights.

2.We ask the court to recognize the bill of rights as a timeless declaration of human rights, and that all articles contained therein are as valid as when approved and recorded as the law of the land.

3.We ask the court to recognize the constitution has specific provision for modification to the articles and content contained therein and the legislative and executive branches of government are not empowered to modify or restrict the statement of the constitution without due process.

4.We ask the court to recognize that all articles within the Bill of Rights enumerate individual rights which predate government, and therefore not susceptible to abridgment or revocation by government for any reason.

5.We ask the court to recognize that legislation controlling ownership and possession of arms, such as but not limited to waiting periods, licensing, registration, purchase quotas, permission to buy, storage, concealed carry, or to otherwise rule the "who, what, when, where, and how" to keep and bear arms is an infringement.

6.We ask the court to recognize, that the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to the militia but is the right of choice of all free people as the responsibility for the security of the free state rest in the hands of the people.

7.We ask the court to recognize the people are the government, and the intent of the bill of rights is to control the elected government representatives, any compromise of the bill of rights reduces the power of the people and the ability to self govern.

8.In recognition of the forgoing, we ask the court to rule in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms with specific language preventing congress and the president from qualifying the type, quantity, location, time, who, method and means.


Respectfully Submitted,
We the People


[This message has been edited by Jace (edited January 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jace (edited January 06, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jace (edited January 10, 2000).]
 
without permission from the people.

Stop RIGHT there. No one... and I mean NO ONE... has the right or authority to place restrictions on any basic rights. Majority Rule doesn't mean jackdammit in this regard. Recommend you strike that phrase.

Otherwise, aside from some grammatical quibbles, I'll get behind this petition.


------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
Okay, couple of questions. 1)Will the Supreme Court take notice of a petition? Has it ever taken notice of one before?
2)If the Court does take notice, will such notice have the weight of Constituitional Law behind it?

When the First Amendment asserts the Peoples right to petition the Court for redress of grievances, I was given to understand that 'petition' in this case meant filing a lawsuit and following it up the chain of Courts. Can anyone refute this?

Hell, I like a good legal wrangle, let's give it a try!

LawDog
 
ISP blew me out of another "best of" ... reboot.

Coin, excellent catch! The Constitution of The United States of America specifically delineated those rights on which the government may never infringe. These rights are not allowed or government given and never be voted away bt fiat or the majority.
Even if no one person in this country wanted to excercise these rights, they would still stand. I had a much better tirade written but, "life in the New Millenium." (I know, I know!)

Let's do it. What the hell. Old saying" "If you can't afford a movie, go to the zoo; can't afford that, go talk to a politician - cheap entertainment." Maybe Mark Twain.

Flesh it out in here & when we get a final copy, do the distribution bit for signatures.

What are they gonna do? send it back?

------------------
we gladly feast on those who would subdue us
 
Coinneach and labgrade: So struck! Don't know why I had it there in the first place, maybe the 72 hours sleep deprivation, forgive me please!

I also struck the last few words of paragraph #4 so it simply says it is an infringement.

Lawdog: I don't know if the court has ever been petitioned like this or if they responded. I look at it as an "amicus brief" from the people not necessarily a petition for grievances. Should we specifically mention Emerson?

This post is a follow-up from the topic by Tom Jefferson "Peaceful Armed March on Washington" perhaps he can shed some light if he joins us in this discussion.

I remember reading somewhere that Justice Thomas and at least one other were very interested in ruling on the second amendment. Maybe a large number of signatures from the people would give them sufficient reason to do some cherry picking and bring the Emerson case to the high court.

If they received several 100 completed petitions daily from across the land it would certainly give them some food for thought.


[This message has been edited by Jace (edited January 05, 2000).]
 
Isn't "permission of the people" the same as the "consent of the governed"? I seem to have read that somewhere.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Jace - we may want to contact some of the legal academics who have recently pointed out that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an individual right. The most noteworthy being Lawrence Tribe of Harvard. It can't hurt. Best if a lawyer volunteer made the contact if there are no such volunteers then I can give it a try.
*
*
*
Indeed one would think that a petition in the form of an amicus brief for Emerson or an outline brief that might be coupled to a civil disobedience action designed to specifically disobey a (say DC) law that was ripe to be overturned in way that might unwind other similar laws nationally would be interesting.
*
*
*
DC law includes a ratified State of Columbia constitution adopted in 1985 which exactly duplicates the words of the first and second amendment.
 
PLEASE STRIKE OUT THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH #4

You are giving the government legal rights to do what they are already doing, illegally and unconstitutionally.

YOU ARE TAKING A BIG STEP BACKWARDS WITH
#4 and are costing us rights.

Please have that checked with a compentent NRA pro gun attourny.

Again ,please strike out and remove paragraph
#4.

------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Oh ,ah, Yea!
And by the way,too! The complete tilte of the petition and a brief , paragraph sized,
discription of the petition must appear on each and every page that is signed by a petitioner. Therefore, you will have to use
8 inch by 14 inch legal pad sized paper.

Occassionally, my afterthoughts come
in usefull!! But, true genius is only realized on the toilet; where serious thinking can occur! !;^)

------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
I don't think we should involve the NRA as an entity in this endeavor. NRA, SAF etc., support for our effort should be encouraged but we are an independent, grass roots group, our effort should convince the country and the media of the broad base of our concern rather then let them describe it as just another NRA or SAF special interest activity.
*
*
*
That said anyone is welcome to join and shape the discussion (except those who oppose our goals and focus on the first and second amendment).
 
whoops!! the DC (state of Columbia) constitution was ratified in 1987 not '85- even better! The point being that the clear words that the right of the people to keep and bear arms were relevant and modern enough to be formally adopted by the federal city itself only 13 years ago!

a link
LexisLink

Constitution for the State of New Columbia (Ratified 1982)
Constitution for the State of New Columbia (Enacted 1987)
United States Constitution
District of Columbia Code

(Link edited by Rich Lucibella for formatting purposes only. Original content remains intact.)

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited January 15, 2000).]
 
Tom Jefferson: If you feel you can be successful with the contact please go ahead. I will be attempting same. It won't hurt for both of us to have at it.

Ernest2: I rewrote #4 I think it should be clear now. Also I believe that a bound document (if you have been through a divorce you now what I mean) with the full petition works. I will get legal advice if none of the legal beagles in our group can respond.

I think this would have a better chance if developed independent of the NRA, SAF, GOA etc. This would make it a true grass roots movement and give the media less ammunition to use against us when it's mature. They big boys could certainly improve exposure when we get it moving.

I would like to thrown in some verbiage about the rights being irrevocable human rights guaranteed by the constitution as you mention but I haven't been able to put anything together that I like. Can someone come up with a phrase?

BTW I will be on the road till Monday, maybe I can get to the www on Saturday. so long for now.
 
Can someone come up with a phrase?

Try this:

"All of the articles in the Bill of Rights enumerate individual rights which predate government, and are therefore not susceptible to abridgement or revocation by government for any reason."


------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited January 06, 2000).]
 
Coineach: Thanks, I added it after 3 making it #4 and resequenced the rest.

I thought an epilog mentioning these points might be beneficial.
1.Recents studies show benefit of gun ownership by civilians hence we don't understand why the government wants to disarm us.
2. Recent studies showing media bias against the second amendment we want to be sure the ordinary citizen's interpretation of the second is presented.
3. Government officials are proposing more laws to restrict gun ownership but not enforcing existing laws this again makes us wonder why the government wants to disarm us.

Anyone have any ideas?
 
I queried Laurence Tribe Phd of Harvard about the petition here is his response:

"There is no procedure for presenting the Supreme Court with a petition
signed by concerned citizens. The Constitution contemplates no such petition
process; nearly all constitutional scholars would certainly say that the
Constitution implicitly precludes letting any such process influence the
Court. Finally, I have no doubt that every member of the Supreme Court would
simply disregard any such petition, believing it totally improper for the
Court to be affected by anything other than the arguments presented by the
parties or in duly filed amicus briefs or in published books or articles.
Thus, while I commend your earnest desire to make your views as citizens
known in some manner, I would be misleading you if I were to suggest that
the action you have in mind could somehow help to advance the cause of
getting the Supreme Court to take the Second Amendment more seriously than
it did when it last considered that amendment. Some Justices might find such
a petition annoying; most, in all likelihood, would not be willing even to
read it. -- Laurence H. Tribe."


[This message has been edited by Jace (edited January 12, 2000).]
 
Did Laurence Tribe have any suggestions about how we do interpret the "right to petition" in the first amendment? Or why we could (or should) not petition congress, and the president?
*
*
What about petitioning the Federal Court System as embodied by the Supreme Court. Treated as a political plea rather then a legal document.
 
Tom Jefferson: What you see is what I got. I believe law dog answered the question about a normal petition earlier on in this thread.

I was hoping like you that a popular petition would get the proper attention of the court. It doesn't look like a good idea and might do more harm than good.

As far as presenting the president or congress with a popular petition I don't see why not. They are supposed to carry out the will of the people. To me this type of activity is much the same as a letter writing campaign which has been very effective.

Put this on the agenda for the meeting. For those who don't know about the meeting see the post "Peaceful Armed March on Washington II"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top