Why the GOP Does Not Merit My (or Your) Vote or Support

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bob Locke

New member
Posted this on FreeRepublic, and it got a LOT of response. Looking to continue the debate.

Let me start by giving my credentials to comment on this matter.

I live in a city of about 100,000 people in SE Virginia. I served two years on the executive committee of the local GOP committee, followed by 18 months as its chairman. I have been party to many of the "backroom" deals that many people here comment on without having any firsthand knowledge of them. I have seen the party "leadership" at work in ways that would totally shock some of you. I have seen people absolutely destroyed because of their refusal to give up their principles. It is a nasty business. In short, I have "been there and done that".

The Republican Party leadership is not concerned in the least with your rights. It is concerned with maintaining its own power and the trappings that go with that power. Those of you who support them, particularly those who do so blindly, are nothing more than a means to an end for them. They know they can scare you into supporting whichever candidate they put before you, because you have demonstrated to them that you will cower in fear and pull the lever like a trained monkey. And I say that as one who used to be guilty of doing just that. But no more.

But the Democrats are worse!

This is the rallying call these days. It has nothing to do with the fact that the vast majority of elected Republicans are horrible themselves. Too few want to talk about that, and so we continue down the path away from freedom and liberty.

But the country cannot survive another four years of Clinton/Gore!

Ludicrous. That's straight from the fear-mongering book written by James Carville during the '96 elections. Since the case cannot be made in the affirmative for the GOP candidates, make it in the negative against the Democrats. It is the last act of desperate people who know they have nothing with which to work.

But the next president will appoint 3 or maybe 4 justices to the Supreme Court!

So? The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in America, the American people are. That's what trial by jury is all about, folks. Do a little more homework on jury nullification and the ability of juries to not only rule on the facts of a case but also on the underlying law(s) as well. If they deem that a law is un-Constitutional and thus hold no force, then their judgement is NOT open to review. It is the next-to-last "box" through which we may make changes in America, the order being soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.

The Constitution is a limitation upon the federal government as well as an outline for its structure. It is one of the most-ignored documents in Washington, and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats. Both have conspired to give us things such as asset forfeiture, gun control, out-of-control taxation, intanglement in foreign affairs that are none of our business, and a whole host of other infringements on our basic rights as citizens. And the thing that amazes me here is that the Republicans are attempting to hold on to the mirage that they somehow don't agree with the Democrats on their socialist agenda. At least the Democrats gave up on trying to conceal it.

Lastly, let me leave you with some words from Samuel Adams. I think he summed it up pretty well:

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams, 1776
 
Ya .. now what? So we find out that politics is full of politicians, that most politicians are lawyers and that most lawyers are.......... Now, what was the word that I was looking for. BTW, I have met an honest lawyer. I can remember the day as if it were yesterday.
 
I am not getting into this debate again. I just want to comment on one thing you said.

"The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in America, the American
people are. That's what trial by jury is all about, folks." Sorry, but you're wrong. The Supremes are the final arbiter of all Constitutional issues. Barring a constitutional amendment, the Supremes have the final say. That's what the Constitution of the United States itself says. If we do intend to return the nation to the ideals of the founding fathers, then we must accept that the Constitution provides

Are the Supremes the final authority on moral issues? Not really. Are they the final authority on legal issues? Not totally (Congress can override them on some issues). But are they the final authority in terms of the Constitution? Absent armed revolution, yup. That's why they are so important. And if the Supremes determine that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, the only option we have is rebellion. Unless you're willing to be the first one to pick up and use a weapon, I suggest you reevaluate the importance of securing those seats.
 
I am not going to get into this debate again either. Creating one thread after another of this nature is just getting to be ridiculous. There is more than enough info in the archives that gives both points of view very well. I suggest you go there and read it and give this subject a rest. Of course no one is under any obligation to follow my advice. It is only a suggestion. I for one will be very happy when this election is over and we can get back to business fighting the antigunners instead of fighting with each other.

Joe


NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
I am not getting into this debate again. I just want to comment on one thing you said.

The Supremes are the final arbiter of all Constitutional issues. Barring a constitutional amendment, the Supremes have the final say. That's what the Constitution of the United States itself says. .... But are they the final authority in terms of the Constitution? Absent armed revolution, yup. [/quote]

Actually, this is not true. Article III gives the Supremes authority over cases arising from the Constitution, but since the three branches were created as equals, there is no divine right of the Supremes to interpret the Constitution in every instance. That being said, Congress and the Executive branch will generally defer to the Judicial branch, in order to avoid going on record as taking a stand. Various Justices have made statements along the lines of, "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means," but there is no real basis in the Constitution for that.

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
Hi Bob,

<<<I live in a city of about 100,000 people in SE Virginia. I served two years on the executive committee of the local GOP committee, followed by 18 months as its chairman. I have been party to many of the "backroom" deals that many people here comment on without having any firsthand knowledge of them. I have seen the party "leadership" at work in ways that would totally shock some of you. I have seen people absolutely destroyed because of their refusal to give up their principles. It is a nasty business. In short, I have "been there and done that".>>>>
----Bob, were you one of the ones that the party apparatus "destroyed" for standing on principle?

<<<<The Republican Party leadership is not concerned in the least with your rights. It is concerned with maintaining its own power and the trappings that go with that power. Those of you who support them, particularly those who do so blindly, are nothing more than a means to an end for them. They know they can scare you into supporting whichever candidate they put before you, because you have demonstrated to them that you will cower in fear and pull the lever like a trained monkey. And I say that as one who used to be guilty of doing just that. But no more.>>>>
-----This paragraph has several intersting aside's. The major one that I find intriquing is the lack of success that the libertarian party has had at any level of government. Ron Paul, was when I stayed current with ya'll's ramblings concerning how wonderful ya'll would be as leaders,, your one stellar performer, and he ran as a republican to get the seat, with out gop support. Ya'll stand aside and throw stones at every one else, and you have done nothing on the national scene, yet you and ya'll alone know what is right. Ya'll speak of people as "sheeple", or "trained Monkeys", thats certain to win people to your side, you show a total lack of respect for people who do not share your views. People pull the lever in fear, sheesh, I fear zealots who wrap themselves in the flag and quotes and have all the answers...Do people pull that lever for the "lesser of two evils"(another libertarian favorite), what makes you think there are only two evils, some people see large parts of the libertarian party as evil or anarchistic. Just because they arent pulling that lever for you might mean they fear you and your view and do accept the consequence of pulling that lever inorder to keep the lib's out of office.
As for partys trying to stay in power and concerned with it....yes they all are, even the libertarians--why else would ya'll constantly harrangue and attack other views while only glowing praise for your own party, it sorta reminds me of a cult, a religion. Dont you think that the libertarian party will want to stay in power once they (assuming they do) acquire it? What virtures dont you like about the Libertarians, besides there not being effective as a political party?
-----the comment you raised about you having "been a trained monkey", is somewhat amusing, have you ever worked around reformed alcoholics?, the ones ive know and worked around have generally had the harshest critique of drinkers. Your statement of having been a trained monkey reminds me of,,,,a reformed monkey.
----

<<<But the Democrats are worse!

This is the rallying call these days. It has nothing to do with the fact that the vast majority of elected Republicans are horrible themselves. Too few want to talk about that, and so we continue down the path away from freedom and liberty.>>>>
----and they are worse as a whole, but that dosent excuse the republicans imo. There are many that need to go. You notice that when we are discussing people in power, those who make the decisions there are no libertarians with the exclusion of one in the state of tx.,they have had over 20 years to do something and havent got any traction. Of course that's the american "sheeple's" fault as they march lock step in fear and pull the lever as a "trained monkey", those poor deluded americans just cant seem to see how right the liberreich is, how perfect it would be if they would just say the right things and pull the right levers.

<<<<But the country cannot survive another four years of Clinton/Gore!

Ludicrous. That's straight from the fear-mongering book written by James Carville during the '96 elections. Since the case cannot be made in the affirmative for the GOP candidates, make it in the negative against the Democrats. It is the last act of desperate people who know they have nothing with which to work.>>>>
------I dont know about the country, but I dont want to experience more of the clinton gore mess. I also think that more of gore would be bad for the country, you dont have to agree. Im not sure if the much touted Harry Brownne would be any good either. BTW, for the heck of it what has he ever done anyway?I dont mean the muddling around with the libertarian party, well, unless thats all he has done.
------to your other assertion----
<<<<Since the case cannot be made in the affirmative for the GOP candidates, make it in the negative against the Democrats. It is the last act of desperate people who know they have nothing with which to work.>>>>
....LOL...this is too rich, that is exactly the sop for the libertarian party. As usual ya'll take a page from the democratic handbook and utilize it...all that ya'll do on this board is attack the gop, the republicans, the nra, ...sounds negative to me. Now why is that, could it be you have nothing to offer?....imagine that, no real party strength, no real power. All you offer is negativity, of course its framed in "respect" so you can "educate", "teach" the all knowing and wonderful libertarian view..lol....But, just remember to make it positive so it wont be construed as a last act of a desperate people who have nothing to work with..lol...
But the next president will appoint 3 or maybe 4 justices to the Supreme Court!

So? The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in America, the American people are. That's what trial by jury is all about, folks. Do a little more homework on jury nullification and the ability of juries to not only rule on the facts of a case but also on the underlying law(s) as well. If they deem that a law is un-Constitutional and thus hold no force, then their judgement is NOT open to review. It is the next-to-last "box" through which we may make changes in America, the order being soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.>>>
....what you say there has merit, but the constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Ct., I sincerly hope that the battleground of the court room is were we win this fight, I cant possibly remember how many folks Ive run into who are concerned that this country might degenerate into physcial war with the govt., I certainly dont wish that on this country.

<<<<The Constitution is a limitation upon the federal government as well as an outline for its structure. It is one of the most-ignored documents in Washington, and the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats. Both have conspired to give us things such as asset forfeiture, gun control, out-of-control taxation, intanglement in foreign affairs that are none of our business, and a whole host of other infringements on our basic rights as citizens. And the thing that amazes me here is that the Republicans are attempting to hold on to the mirage that they somehow don't agree with the Democrats on their socialist agenda. At least the Democrats gave up on trying to conceal it.>>>>
......I agree with most of this as well, ----there is grumbling among the people of this nation, it will take longer Im afraid for them to rise up, if we ever do, and demand our birth right and settle for nothing less.

Lastly, let me leave you with some words from Samuel Adams. I think he summed it up pretty well:

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams, 1776[/B][/QUOTE]-----
......those ole boys could turn a phrase,tell me do ya'll think you are the inheritors of the 1776 patriotism or can the rest of us claim those old patriots and their views too?
It just seems to me that ya'll are trying to draw the illusion that ya'll are the successors to those patriots, the rightful course and all that.

......later, fubsy.
 
A vote for anyone else = a vote for Gore

There is no way the Libertarians are going to win. You can waste your vote on principle if that is your decision, but it is the same as voting for Gore when you select a nonelectable spoiler.

I don't want to be a Libertarian, period. These people are for no taxes whatsoever, no government, etc. In short, they are anarchists. There is no way the American public is going to vote for a party that legalizes drugs, supports abortions, and is pro-gun. A totally unelectable platform, or at least I hope so. These people want to privatize government and law enforcement. I happen to like the fact the police get paid by my tax dollars. If some private company is providing police protection, do they have to protect me if someone else is paying the bill? These people are insane.

The election of Al Gore means the end of RKBA. If you support RKBA, and have a cerebral cortex, you'll vote for Bush. His website is designed to make him look more moderate. Remember the heat he took in the press about the NRA getting in the white house with Bush? He's trying to counter that. Anyone with a brain knows that Bush has been pro-gun in his home state of Texas. He's trying to play the "Trojan Horse" strategy to get into office, just like Slick Willie did to make himself look more moderate when he cryed out about the "Butchers of Beijing". Remember that? Then he sold us out to China. Bush is trying to look like he is for "sensible gun control" for the soccer mom crowd, but he isn't. If he was I sure wouldn't be carrying a Texas CHL.
 
What is your plan for the day after the Gore election?

You really going to trust a massive wave of jury nullification? See you in the showers - ouch!

I was watching Hardball and they debating some other issue - whether the XXX subset of the XXXX GOP would support Bush if he didn't take a stronger stand against %(#)%(% (won't say it). The talking heads said the true believers would rather righteously lose the election to Gore than have a less than perfect Bush stand on %$_#_$%_%.

Same old, same old.

In one paragraph

If Gore gets in and passes strict gun control laws, they won't be repealed in our life time.

There will be no revolution.

The country will go along with it.

We might see some new few folks on documentaries on the Discover channel, on fire and squished by tanks. Be a change from Waco.

But you will feel righteous!!

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Westtexas:
A vote for anyone else = a vote for Gore ... You can waste your vote on principle if that is your decision, but it is the same as voting for Gore when you select a nonelectable spoiler.[/quote]

Is this the same message you send folks who support Nader and the Green Party, or do you reserve this particular falsehood only for people voting Libertarian?

If you have any evidence that ballots marked for Browne, Buchanan, Nader, etc., are somehow counted in the Gore totals, please present it. If not, I'd suggest that you confine your future posts to something approximating the truth.

And it's interesting that someone would consider voting on principle a waste. Why would you vote for Bush if not on principle?
 
Evidence of a vote for anyone else=a vote for Gore:

In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot cut heavily into Republican support for George Bush. Democratic voters did not support Perot, and the 3rd party candidate handed Slick Willie a win with less than a majority of the vote. A vote for Perot hurt Bush, thereby helping Clinton. I think those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. I think people who tell me that voting for the Libs doesn't hurt Bush aren't telling the truth. I think Browne wouldn't run for president if he cared about our Second Amendment rights. I think he is power hungry and ambitious like any other politician and that he doesn't give a flip for RKBA if he is willing to hand this thing to Al Gore just for the chance of running.
AND, I think I just made my argument perfectly clear :)
 
I would like to say something in defense of true libertarian/objectivist beliefs.

They are not anarchists - well, maybe some who call themselves libertarians ARE; but that is not the platform. "Anarchist" is used as a relative term - to someone who believes income tax should be 50%, saying it should be 20% makes you an anarchist.

Goverment must exist - a lot of people use this as an argument excusing abuses of govt., like rounding up guns or drugs (both of which kill in the wrong hands, and one of which was actually DESIGNED to kill shock horror).

Government must exist to protect people from the initiation of force, and to act as an objective arbitrer of what constitutes righteous defensive force vs. murder.

A true libertarian position has a government that would deal with you shooting in self defense similarly to Texas; you were reasonably defending yourself from a reasonably percieved threat you get off; but the individual cannot choose to kill someone else and objective govt. must investigate this.

Privatized police? Technically sheriffs ARE privatized police - a (small) community chooses the boss directly and indirectly the staff. It is every citizen's responsibility, as is now anyway, to ensure that these don't get out of line. This starts getting inconsistent with a police state where it's the other way around. Perhaps the "privatized police" concern comes from there not being mandatory taxes to fund the police. Would you pay to have police? You are forced to now; but would not good concerned citizens pay voluntarily?


Battler.
 
You heard it hear first. Vote anything but a straight Republican ticket in November and be prepared to surrender your guns. It is as simple as that.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Merit? Cripes! If I waited around for a party with merit I would never get to vote. FWIW I thought the Libertarian Party had a lot of merit back in the late 70's. It just didn't catch on enough to become a force in American politics. John
 
I vowed not to go down this road again.

Will leave you with 2 quotes though:

"Politicians. There ain't a nickel's worth of difference between any of 'em." -- George Wallace

"There is no po-li-tical so-lu-tion,
To our tro-ubl-ed e-vo-lu-tion." -- Sting
 
I agree they don't but they, at least Bush will get my vote. While I would prefer some other candidate Bush is the only "REAL" choice with a chance to be elected. We must fight one battle at a time and the next battle is Bush -vs- Gore. For me it's an easy decision.
 
Okay, Okay... Now I'm really frightened into voting for Bush although he doesn't represent my beliefs/values, he is better than Gore! Wow, isn't that kinda like saying Hitler only killed 9 million, and Stalin killed 20 million, so Hitler must be a better choice than Stalin, and besides, I have blonde hair and blue eyes and I'm from pure German decent. Therefore, I must vote Hitler because he isn't as bad a Stalin.

Really now! a bunch of grown men using scare tactics to persuede another group of grown men to vote against their conscience, how rediculous (and Republican).

Just for an interesting insight, the Republicans in Texas are suprisingly libertarian. It is a point that may have escaped some of you that libertarian actually describes a philosophy, NOT a political party. The party just aptly named itself for the principles on which all its members must swear an oath to. Ron Pauls politics is sweeping the Republican electorate here in Texas. The news isn't reporting it, but I heard mention of it during the state GOP convention by a news report. Yep, instead of libertarians gaining power on their own, they are just converting the GOP.
As for the fact that the LP doesn't want to pay any taxes, you are a great example of the ignorance and arrogance that will doom the Republican party eventually. The Libertarian Party espouses a tax plan that places control of the Federal Government back into the hands of the consumer/taxpayer. Wow, imagine that, if you don't buy, you don't get taxed! If you don't import/export, you don't get taxed! I guess that we would have to learn to do without all of the social programs that I'm sure we all use, but somehow, I think we could manage.
The Libertarian Party's guiding principle is that Government should not INITIATE the use of force. That's it. You can believe anything you want, but there is a fine line between a citizen and subject. With a sales tax, or even tariffs, you give the ultimate power back to the people. Income tax must be paid, or you will have a friendly visit by the Waco bunch. That is the INITIATION of FORCE that is condemned by the Libertarian Party. If you, like me are appalled by Government funding of abortion, and you find that it is a moral wrong equal to or worse than slavery, then you should not be compelled to support it. That goes for tree huggers, and anyone else who has a principled stand against anything. These things should not be forced upon the taxpayer, and instead should be handled by those recipients who are recieving the service in the first place. So you want an abortion, but you can't find the money? Get a job, or get a loan. Don't make me finance it. At least those in the South of yore, did not force the taxpayer to pay for his practice of the evil called slavery.
If I want my kid to see Art museums that display crucifix's in urine, or a man with a bull-whip sticking out of his ass, or my personal favorite of Andre Serrano: Ejaculate in trajectory, then I should have to pay an entrance fee. Don't take my money at the threat of violent force to make me subsidize this crap (Ntnl endowment of the Arts).
There are a whole host of reasons why you should vote your conscience. You should first learn about our founding principles as outlined in the Declaration of independence, and the U.S. Constitution, and then go out and select the candidate that most closely represents your values, and the values represented in these documents. The Libertarian Party seems to do a better job of that than say the GOP or DP. That isn't to say that there aren't some in the GOP that I won't vote for. I vote Republican from time to time, when a candidate demonstrates to me that he understands those guiding principles. Not until that time though. I don't go blindly pulling the lever, hoping for somthing that the past 60 years has proven to be false.
You guys continue to throw more of what isn't working at the problem, and maybe it'll eventually get fixed. I will try a different approach, and maybe one of us will solve the problem.
Oh, and the Supreme Court is notoriously negligent in its duties. Most of the causes of the civil war could have been avoided if the Supreme Court would not have shirked its duty. Instead we had 600,000 lives lost over some of the most simple principles (not slavery). So I do not gamble my childrens future hoping for a decent decision from the Supreme Court.
 
For quite some time now I've avoided this seemingly endless argument, but it seems like time to chime in again. Am I happy with the GOP, especially with respect to RKBA? No. But political parties do change if their members create the pressure. I can remember when the Democratic party was largley pro-2nd. One of the best defenses of the 2nd was spoken by that right-wing-conspiracist Hubert Humphrey.
What changed? The anti's within the party got a louder and larger voice. Of course, the media applauded their performances but, then, the media has never liked Republicans.

I'll go third party on lower levels, but a Gore White House is going to shut us all down quickly.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
I am not even paying any attention to the rhetoric these days. Bush is clearly the lesser of all the evils. I'm going to vote a straight Republican ticket in the national election. A vote for anyone else simply increases Gore's chance of getting elected.
Jerry

------------------
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
 
Mr. Locke,

Thank you for your post. I think the GOP's going to fracture along regional lines, much like the Whigs prior to the Civil War, to be replaced by some sort of Constitution Party/Libertarian Party political stew. Drug/counter-culture issues would finally be resolved by the states, where such issues belong, and with the gutting of the welfare state and other abominations, personal responsibility will (I hope) come to clean up the morass of sexual squalor and abortion. Obviously, Bush will be the GOP's last hurrah.

The question is whether or not the country will be able to survive the next twenty years.


[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
Before any of you vote this November, please read this...


Check out the government's posistion on gun ownership! And people say that they don't want to take ALL of our guns!!!


Truth Squad - http://www.guntalk.com
June 14, 2000

To Members of the Gun Talk Truth Squad

Howdy:

Yesterday I flew to New Orleans to listen to arguments on the Emerson
Case. This is an important case for Second Amendment supporters. For a
complete background on Emerson, see the Second Amendment Foundation
website: http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html.

Neal Knox sent out an alert about this immediately after the arguments
were heard, and while I agree with much of that report, Neal wasn't there.
Also, because Neal has been in this fight for a long time (as has Linda
Thomas, who gave him the report), I think they both might have glossed
over something that many gun owners would find amazing. By the way,
Neal's email reports are good information, and I suggest that you
subscribe to them. www.nealknox.com. He and I don't always agree, but if
you take his reports as a part of your research, I think you will find
them useful.

I sat next to Linda, which is interesting, in that our notes differ in a
couple of places. Such is reporting, I guess. Nothing big, but a few
details.

Here are the "Cliff Notes" on the case. Dr. Emerson was issued a
boilerplate restraining order in the middle of a divorce. There were 22
orders in the R.O., and three of them said, basically, that he had to stay
away from his wife. By federal law (since 1994), a person who is under a
restraining order, even if there is no evidence of a threat of violence,
may not own firearms. Yes, that's right. You lose a civil,
Constitutional right because a judge pushes a key on a computer and a
standard R.O. comes out.

The original decision by Judge Sam Cummings is a work of art, tracing the
history of government restriction of arms ownership (swords, armor,
firearms) back to England, before there was a United States of America.
You owe it to yourself to read this decision: http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html.

Now, to the appeal in the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, yesterday. First,
let me say that the lawyer (Crooks) representing Emerson was . . . how
shall I say this . . . not the best I've seen. However, the attorney from
the Alabama Attorney General's office (Cooper) was very good. The A.G.'s
office argued on Emerson's side.

The three-judge panel (Garwood, DeMoss, and Parker) asked tough questions,
and showed that they weren't buying the government's (federal government)
assertion that because a firearm once traveled across state lines, that
this gun was "involved in interstate commerce." This is important,
because if the firearm is not involved in interstate commerce, the federal
government has no place in this, and it is a state matter.

Note this exchange:

DeMoss: "I have a 16 gauge shotgun in my closet at home. I have a
20-gauge shotgun. I also have a 30-caliber rifle at home. Are you saying
these are "in or affecting interstate commerce?

Meteja (government lawyer): "Yes"

You'll note the personal tone to Judge DeMoss's question. This personal
tone carried throughout the one-hour session.

Veterans of Second Amendment battles understand that the U.S. government
takes the position that you do not have a right to own a gun. Many
people, however, say "Oh come on, you don't really believe that, do you?"

Well, here it is from the mouth of the lawyers representing the United
States government, from my notes at the Emerson case.

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent
with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can
restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is
that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (for the government: "Yes"

Judge Garwood was having none of that.

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are
not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second
Amendment?"

Meteja: Exactly.

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough
to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the
guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is
needed?

Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

In other words, no one, even if a member of the National Guard, has a
right to own guns privately. That is the position of the U.S. government.

The judges seemed to reject the federalism position of the government
which says that once an item has moved across a state line, it is forever
covered by federal laws because it is involved in interstate commerce.
This rejection seems to be in line with several narrow decisions from the
Supreme Court in recent years.

The judges also appeared incredulous that the government was saying that
no one has a right to own guns, and that the Second Amendment guarantees
only the right of the National Guard to own guns.

It will be weeks or months before a decision is issued on this case, and
nothing is assured, by any means. However, if you need some hope, I leave
you with this final statement to government lawyer, made by Judge DeMoss.

"You shouldn't let it bother your sleep that Judge Garwood (the senior
judge) and I, between us, own enough guns to start a revolution in most
South American countries."

Now, what can you do with this information?

1. Write letters detailing the government's position that NO ONE has a
right to own a gun. Most people in this country believe that they do, in
fact, have the right to own a gun, and they need to know what the
government is saying.

2. Explain to your fellow gun owners how important this case is (see point
number 1 above), and that it is vital that Al Gore not be elected
president, where he can appoint Supreme Court justices. If the Emerson
case goes as I hope, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. We don't
want Gore appointees sitting there when this case arrives.

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

The Emerson case will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. The next president will nominate as many as 4 new Supreme Court justices to the high court to replace those who will soon be retiring. Who do you want picking those judges?

Joe

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top