--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> 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.
>
Good link- Thank you.
