"YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS.”

NRA Attorney:
“YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS.”
by Angel Shamaya
October 13, 2003
KeepAndBearArms.com -- NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook appears not only unprepared to effectively argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm — to register handguns and call it “reasonable” — when he gets his day in court. Read the annotated transcript of Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments from court just last week:
D.C. SECOND AMENDMENT FEDERAL COURT HEARING
Annotated Transcript of NRA Case Proceedings
by Roy Lucas
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp
Here is a short excerpt from Mr. Halbrook's oral arguments last Wednesday, October 8, in a case the NRA calls a “Second Amendment” lawsuit:
THE COURT: THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
MR. HALBROOK: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.
THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?
MR. HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.>

snip-
Arguing a so-called “Second Amendment case” while “wanting to register handguns” is working directly against the rights of those who would never submit to such restrictions under any circumstances. Stephen Halbrook is an NRA-paid attorney, and he filed this lawsuit with their support.
Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have gone to court to fight a Second Amendment case merely wanting to register handguns in the home? Of course not. Would they have argued for handgun registration in the middle of a court hearing in which they eagerly agreed that the government can impose “reasonable restrictions”? Not a chance. Doing so suggests that such an overt infringement on our Second Amendment rights is “reasonable,” when it most certainly is not. Treasonable, perhaps...
You do not have to register your Bible, or your computer (First Amendment), snip-

NRA Dues paying members know about this or where their funds are really going.

about to be fired

they're working to overturn one very narrow area of the law, not the entire thing. Angel's an asshole who has done mucho damage to the Second Amendment cause, and whose main cause seems to be putting cash in Angel's pocket.

The root of the case is that DC has a law requiring registration of handguns, but the government isn't allowing people to register them, effectively prohibiting them. Halbrook is trying to open it up so that people can register handguns to keep in their homes. If he can do that, it'll be a MAJOR victory for the Second Amendment.

And by their actions in this and other cases they continue to prove that.

there's a lot going on here, and the snippets are taken out of context of the whole situation.

Halbrook's strategy is an excellent one, and I support it 100%.

that even one of the shrillest extremist groups on the planet (NRA) isn't crazy enough to suit the REALLY demented.

"Handguns are absolutely banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them. Our lawsuit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, seeks to allow D.C. residents once again lawfully to possess handguns.

Our clients actually live in the District of Columbia and are confronted by criminals of all kinds in their neighborhoods. For them, it would be major progress to be able to keep a handgun in the home, even if it must be registered. Arm-chair critics may wish to litigate every gun control law on the books in one case, but it's not realistic litigation strategy.

Our strategy is a narrowly-focused effort to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, so that residents who are daily threatened by criminal violence may keep handguns in their homes to defend themselves. To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.

NRA supports this litigation as part of a broader strategy to restore Second Amendment rights to D.C. citizens. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to repeal not just the handgun ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in the Congress.

Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law"

(BTW, Mods, I have permission to quote the entire thing, so there's no copyright issue)

QUOTE
Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them.
UNQUOTE

Untill someone can guarantee 100% that registration of firearms will not lead to a ban, then I and most pro-RKBA people will continue to oppose registration of firearms.

QUOTE

THE COURT: BUT AT THAT TIME THE MILITARY MIGHT OF THIS NATION HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND, THEREFORE, IN ORDER FOR THE NATION TO PROTECT ITSELF, THERE WAS A NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO HAVE WEAPONS SO THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ATTACK, THE NATION WOULD BE ABLE TO CALL THOSE PEOPLE TOGETHER AND FORM A MILITARY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE NATION. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. I MEAN WE CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD ALL THE TIME, AND WE HAVE GOT A READY AVAILABLE CACHE OF GUNS AND WEAPONRY AVAILABLE FOR THEM.

This is a common gun control argument that needs to be answered fully every time.

Individuals, homes, and businesses do need arms now. The police and military are not enough. They government takes no responsibility for protecting citizens in individual cases.

UNQUOTE

Defense could have said state constitutions predating the Constitution and BOR recognized an individual's inalienable right to defend self and property. That right was not alienated when states ratified the Constitution and BOR.

Self defense is a personal problem since government is obligated to protect itself and not an individual. Firearms are the choice of criminals and law enforcement officers for self defense and individuals, like the military, should be allowed to use the same or better arms as their enemy, criminals.

Ho-hum....

"Individuals, homes, and businesses do need arms now. The police and military are not enough. "
Ja! Ze people must become an army of dedicated fighters...ein volk, ein reich, ein fuehrer!

Too too funny...

Angel on the radio , say that the NRA is taking on Ashcroft and the result will be Ashcroft having to take an anti 2nd ammmen tack, and that the result will set precedent.

He claims he has a much stronger pro 2nd ammen suit prepared and the lead NRA lawyers are attacking his position.

I'll admit i know very little about this subject....but it sounds like theres some theater going on here.

Look at some of the more outrageous caselaw out there... People grandstand and lose cases that would be winnable if they were done properly, in an attempt to generate controversy and increase their personal fundraising capabilities. Halbrook's 2 and 0 on Second Amendment issues before the Supreme Court. What's Angel's record? There's grandstanding going on....and it ain't Halbrook doing it. He's the guy left to clean up the grandstander's mess. Talk about a thankless job....

With "friends" like Angel on our side, who needs enemies?

That is the LAST thing they want.

For when that happens they will lose their major source of revenue.

The NRA will continue to oppose every 2nd Amendment case unless they have total control over it and can guide it into a partial ruling. So they can continue to send out their mass mailings begging for money to 'fight for the cause'.

The NRA is not a true friend to the people that believe in the people's right to the tools of self-defense.

imagine how all those idiots who believed the NRA are going to feel when they found out they were being lied to all these years.

"The NRA will continue to oppose every 2nd Amendment case unless they have total control over it"
Gee, there's nothing keeping them from suing on their own...except facts.

How enlightening, when encountering a new gun nut "authority" to google their name and see what bobs to the surface like filth from a casspool.....

http://www.sierratimes.com/members/angel.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973328/posts

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Our_Culture/my_name_is_freedom.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32094

Oh, and look at some of the scummy folks who think she's just dan-dan-dandy:

http://www.restoringamerica.org/archive/walley/standing_together.html

Does anybody in the RKBA crowd ever read anything SANE people read?

And let's not miss this:

"The comments were generally positive until Angel Shamaya (the Director of KeepAndBearArms.com) chimed in with a horrible statement that since Mr. Whittle didn't own a gun he was a sub-citizen"...

http://www.aubreyturner.org/archives/000143.html

or THIS...

"In a letter posted at www.keepandbeararms.com on Wednesday, November 8, site director Angel Shamaya claims to have had a "detailed call" with the Texas governor's office. "We have grave reason to believe that a nonviolent coup is being attempted to wrongfully deprive you of the Presidency," Shamaya wrote. The letter concludes: "e are counting on you to defend the liberties we hold so dear, and most specifically our sacred and foundational individual right to keep and bear arms." "

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/departments/11_30_00/upfront_silicon_lounge.html

Say, what was the name of this site again?

I'm pretty sure I posted something on this thread about him being an asshole before you did. Apparently we do agree on something. That makes me wonder if I'm losing my mind... ;-)

At least you have one to lose...