--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2001@> wrote: <snip> > > Mr. Holder for one filed an amicus brief
He signed it, along with others; he didn't file it. in the DC > > gun ban case in favor of total hand gun ban and ban on > > the use of any firearm for self defense in the home. No, it required that other firearms be kept unloaded or with a trigger lock. It didn't ban possession or use. > > Self defense is not legal? what a concept. > > It's my understanding that that case applied to Washington > DC where they had ALREADY outlawed handguns. That's correct. Handguns had been outlawed in D.C. since 1975 because of the high level of handgun violence in the city. When the challenge to the ban went to the Supreme Court, a majority of members of Congress signed an amicus brief in favor of the court overruling the ban (55 in the Senate, 250 in the House). The Bush Justice Department *opposed* overruling the ban. And remember your original claims, "Most of the crew in DC is in favor of restricting gun ownership almost totally," and then "Many [in the federal government] advocate a total ban." Holder signing the amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller is hardly enough to support those claims. Nelson, John's right on this, and you're wrong. I don't know where you've been getting this stuff, but it's simply incorrect. Here's an article from ReasonOnline, a libertarian publication, that will give you an accurate picture of where things stand now: http://www.reason.com/news/show/131352.html The writer is obviously not a knee-jerk Obamabot like John, so he should have some credibility with you; but he isn't a right-wing gun nut, either, so his report is fact-based and his analysis sober and straightforward.
