Quote:
|
If the Democrats nominate someone that doesn't have all every single member of the gun control lobby in their back pocket frothing at a chance to further limit our rights perhaps the White House in '08 is viable. Be as concerned about all of our rights, even if it doesn't interest you or concern you because it's important to one of your fellow Americans
|
If you look at the facts, gun rights groups spend far more money exercising their first amendment rights to influence candidates than gun control groups:
Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. The leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has given $1.5 million over the past 15 years.
If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period.
By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/
It is also common knowledge that these gun control groups do not want to ban all handguns; they simply want registration and a waiting period for hand guns. and yes, banning semi-automatic weapons....positions held by a majority of the country. And as you and DK probably both know, the Supreme Court has never ruled that registration and other such limitations are an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.
IMO, it is the lying, threatening and intimidating tactics of the NRA that are more harmful to the political process than any actions by gun control advocate groups.
/end threadjack with same old arguments..but it had to be said
*****
Back to the OP.
Last week, Repub Senator Arlen Spector submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking the Court to hear Guantanamo cases that challenge the Military Commissions Act:
Quote:
With the Supreme Court due to decide whether it will take up once more the case of the Guantánamo detainees and their right to habeas corpus, last night Senator Arlen Specter submitted an amicus brief to the Court in support of the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel's petition for a writ of certiorari that asks the Court to hear the case this spring.
In his brief, Senator Specter writes, "Congress has struggled with the important constitutional questions presented in these cases. The arguments have been aired and re-aired. The time is ripe for this Court to address the constitutional infirmity of the MCA's attempt to curtail the right of habeas corpus. Habeas must be restored to ensure that the rule of law prevails at Guantánamo."
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/newsroom/re...xg&Content=977
|
Its not clear if or when the Supreme Court will take up the cases, but it is good to see this law will not go unchallenged by concerned members of Congress of either party. (no, I dont know why Dems didnt join in the amicus brief..but shame of them)