Indiana Attorney General Signs Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation

[NateIU10]

Indiana Attorney General Signs Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation
Please Thank Attorney General Greg Zoeller!​

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Attorney General Zoeller was one of the many who agrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right and signed the amicus brief. Please call Attorney General Zoeller at (317) 232-6201 and thank him for standing up in support of the Second Amendment. You may also e-mail him at Constituent@atg.in.gov.

The State Attorneys General Amicus Brief can be found by clicking here.

Shoot him an email or give him a call to let him know his support is recognized

 

[TopDog]

Email sent. I'm sure he will appreciate support for his actions.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Seeing how I sent him an email 2 weeks ago for this: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/40676-attorneys_general_say_no_to_gun_ban.html

I will be sending him another one, letting him know he did good this time.

 

[melensdad]

California's attorney general did the same thing! They actually sent a letter supporting the 2nd Amendment incorporation to the SCOTUS.

I'm curious, when all is said and done, how many states will do so?

 

[Bill of Rights]

While I don't think this addresses the full question, I think it's a step in the right (and correct! ) direction. The question addressed is

[FONT=CenturySchoolbook,Bold]
[/FONT]

Whether the right of the people to keep and bear
arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution is incorporated into the
Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be
applicable to the States, thereby invalidating
ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the​

home.

Why is the question limited to "in the home" when Chicago among others, prohibits ownership or possession anywhere?

Note that none of the above is intended to detract from Mr. Zoeller's action, which I agree with and will be contacting him to note. I think this is a good incremental step to restoring our ability to legally exercise our rights, in response to the many incremental steps taken by our opponents to restrict those liberties.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SC_Shooter]

I couldn't agree more that this is definitely a step in the right direction. I too will be sending a message of thanks and also explaining the importance of dropping any limiting language from existing and future briefs.

To me it really is a fence issue - do you SUPPORT 2A rights as being individual rights to own, carry and protect or DON'T you. When there is language involved such as 'in the home' it sounds a lot like "I agree with you...BUT..."

I'm thrilled that he signed onto the brief anyway and think he deserve an atta-boy.

 

[44 MAGNUM SHOOTER]

I will call today and express my thanks. If more people called their representatives, it might help. Unfortunantly, I know a few gun owners personally that think it doesn't matter and they do not vote.

 

[Rampant Pony]

I sent my letter of appreciation as soon as I got the announcement from the NRA.

We all need to let our public officials know when they are doing something right... Not just when they are screwing up.

 

[Feign]

Mine:

Mr. Zoeller,

Please accept my gratitude for signing the Amicus Brief supporting the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. Aside from the "in the home" statement of the initial question, everything that is presented in the brief is absolutely true. However, I understand that it is easier to chip at a block of stone to wear it down rather than trying to pulverize it with every strike.

It is good to know that some still have their head screwed on right!

Thank you,

 

[Boilers]

Has it come down to popular vote where the majority of amicus briefs WINS?

Or, is it really as simple as I think? The 2nd amendment seems very clear and forthright in its meaning. Oh well. Not complaining about him HELPING. But it's sad we NEED HELP to read English.

 

[csaws]

I sent my letter of appreciation as soon as I got the announcement from the NRA.

We all need to let our public officials know when they are doing something right... Not just when they are screwing up.

+1

 

[Biggdogg]

I made sure to send my e-mail thanks this morning as well. Also did a little looking around and sat down with the text of the City if Chicago's Municipal Code...WOW...what an exercise in futile, merry-go-round blather!!

The entire code code on firearms in so convoluted that it made my head spin!!

 

[josterman]

I have send a email to express my thanks.

 

[bartonmd]

Sent, thanks!

 

[Raoc]

I'm afraid I must admit that I don't know where I stand on this. On one hand this is a great move in favor of gun owners everywhere. On the other hand, this is becoming an exercise in the federal government dictating what a state and local authority can and cannot do.

So my question is:

Have we allowed the opposition to pit gun rights vs. state sovereignty? If so, how could this open the door for possible future intrusions?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm afraid I must admit that I don't know where I stand on this. On one hand this is a great move in favor of gun owners everywhere. On the other hand, this is becoming an exercise in the federal government dictating what a state and local authority can and cannot do.

So my question is:

Have we allowed the opposition to pit gun rights vs. state sovereignty? If so, how could this open the door for possible future intrusions?

No, we have not. We are responding to the usurption of our ability to lawfully exercise our fundamental, God-given rights. This usurption has been perpetrated by some who have malice aforethought and by some who mean well but fall victim to the law of unintended consequences. The latter mean for all people to live in peace but fail to understand that peace is not attained by pacifists (or as some call them, sheep) who (to quote LtCol Dave Grossman) could harm others only by accident. They do not understand that they live in peace because of the sheepdog who guards them from the wolves, nor do they understand that though there are thousands of sheep per sheepdog, that one sheepdog cannot protect them from all threats, and when he is absent or otherwise occupied, they have the choice either to run away if they can, stand in their own defense, or die. Most sheep cannot outrun the wolf, nor have they the natural defenses of fang and claw to protect themselves, thus, they die. Much as we humans are not possessed of a skunk's musk gland and cannot imagine how to use such a thing, neither can the sheep conceive of how to use the weapons with which we are all familiar. A lack of understanding leads to fear, and, fearful of what the use of the tool means, they fear the tool itself.

As such, they've infringed farther and farther, and we and our predecessors have allowed it through inaction. The 1A is specific: "Congress shall make no law..." establishing a state religion, limiting free speech, a free press, restricting peaceable assembly, or preventing people from seeking from their government justice when they are wronged. There is no Constitutional ground for extending those limitations on Congressional action to the states or to anyone else, so the 14A was (ab)used to so extend them, but only selectively.
The 2A is much less restrictive as to whom it applies, but much more restrictive in its scope. All prepositions and dependent clauses removed, the 2A says that the right shall not be infringed. The other 21 words of it detail whose right, what right, and why the right shall not be infringed.

States are sovereign but the Constitution to which all have agreed is the supreme law of the land. It says that the right shall not be infringed. It also says that we have more rights than are specifically enumerated, but most importantly, it says that the (federal) government has NO more powers than are specifically granted within it's text.

If we truly lived by the Constitution as written, this question, indeed this entire problem, would never have arisen.

Nonetheless, I thank you for asking it and allowing me to babble on my about this.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jblomenberg16]

Just clicked send on my e-mail:

Mr. Zoeller,

Thank you for your recent support of our 2nd Ammendment Rights. I appreciate your advocacey and defense of a right that many Hoosiers, including myself, consider to be one of the cornerstones of being an American. In recent years it has become increasingly evident that there are individuals within our society, news media, and even government, who have subscribed to scare tactics regarding firearm ownership and use. Many of the tactics are not founded on actual data, but on emotion and opinion. The effects of these tactics can be long lasting, and permanently damaging to our country.

I am a trained engineer, educated by Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, right here in Indiana. A fundamental trait of engineering is using the best data available to make good decisions. The same holds true in Business, Law, Medicine, and the list goes on. As an employee of Cummins Inc. I've seen that decisions that are based on little to no data, or wrong data, can have very grave, and very costly consequences. I've also seen that good decisions based on real data will result in positive outcomes for all affected parties. As a current MBA student at IU's Kelley School of Business, I've gotten a glimpse into the basic workings of our legal system, and understand the importance of case law and Stare Decisis.

I applaud the team that filed the Amicus Brief for thier dilligence in researching past court decisions, examining both legislation and case law, and for above all, using the Constitution of the United States as a guide to determine the proper application of individual rights.

In today's world, we often are quick to criticize, but slow to compliment. I wanted to take time to offer my compliments on the good work, and thank you for defending my Constitutional Rights as a U.S. Citizen.

 

[spartan933]

Let's hope Illinois gets rid of their stupid firearms laws. They had 63 shootings last weekend, 10 fatal, majority of them were all on the South Side. I live 30 minutes from there and it irritates me to no end that they think that somehow outlawing firearms will stop this violence. They want to blame us, the people in Indiana for their problems with the youth. Unfortunately, the State of Illinois is controlled by Chicago Democrats. Even the Dems from downstate Illinois which is very rural, are Pro 2A. I really feel bad for the people of that state. So much corruption and so many problems, mainly due to the Chicago Machine.

 

[Raoc]

States are sovereign but the Constitution to which all have agreed is the supreme law of the land. It says that the right shall not be infringed.

This phrase cleared it up for me.

Great post, thanks for the input. I like to try to get a clear view of an issue before I support it. I'm no constitutional scholar, but for some reason this one had me a little hesitant to jump on board.

Reps to you for clearing that point up!

 

[edsinger]