ADL To Supreme Court: States Should Regulate Firearms

New York, NY, January 11, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called on the United States Supreme Court to continue to allow states to protect their citizens' lives, liberty and property by regulating the purchase and possession of firearms. The League urged the Court to ensure that states retain the ability to keep guns out of the hands of "violent bigots."

Glen S. Lewy, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

This case is about allowing states to protect their citizens' lives, liberty and property by regulating the purchase and possession of firearms.

Gun violence and the caching of dangerous weapons are commonplace among extremists. If states lose the right to regulate firearm ownership, it would help violent bigots in their efforts to create an America based on hate and intolerance. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that states have the tools to counter these agents of hate.

We are also deeply concerned about the possession and use of firearms by children. The Court must permit states to keep guns out of the hands of those who would bring violence to our schools.

The regulation of firearms is a rational response to these twin evils and is consistent with the Second Amendment's call for a well-regulated militia.

This case, District of Columbia v Heller, will determine – for the first time in over 60 years – whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to firearms for private use.

ADL joined a coalition in filing a "friend-of-the-court" brief to the Court, contending that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting a state's authority to regulate firearms when it seeks to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens. Rather, the brief argues, the language of the Amendment can only be reasonably read to prohibit the federal government from interfering with such state regulation.

Jeffrey A. Lamken of Baker Botts L.L.P was the principal author of the coalition brief.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5207_33.htm

The general fact that states can regulate firearms is not the issue.

What is controviersial is whether the regulations pass are a) constitutional, and b) effective.

Heller'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x154065

Mod said "Do not post 'flame bait' discussion topics."

debate but that is the status on most forums regardless of their political and/or topical persuasion.

At one time I used to let it bother me but now its just a 'fact of the forums' and I'm not a mindreader as to what will be accepted and what won't.

...and then tell me it wasn't properly locked. One of our resident gun activists, griping because Jewish Holocaust victims weren't armed heavily enough to suit him? One step up from pissing on their graves; pretty offensive, even by the perpetually low standards of the Gun Dungeon.....

personal responsibility.

Does ADL propose that only members of the Israeli Defense Forces keep and bear arms?

Oh, I forgot, all of the 4.9 million Israeli citizens who are Jewish are members of IDF. It's the other 1.5 million Israeli citizens who are denied RKBA.

Oh that's right NOTHING.

BTW, you obviously don't know much about the IDF if you think..."all of the 4.9 million Israeli citizens who are Jewish are members of IDF. It's the other 1.5 million Israeli citizens who are denied RKBA." Then again, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

justice and fair treatment to all" is in ADL's banner.

In Israel National military service is compulsory for Jewish and Druze men and Jewish women over the age of 18, although exceptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds.

If ADL is so concerned about "justice and fair treatment to all", why doesn't it complain that non-Jewish Israeli citizens are not allowed to keep and bear arms for self-defense but Jewish Israeli citizens are?

Some would call that hypocrisy.

Why should the ADL have say over the policies of Israel? They can make their opinion known, but that is the limit.

"why doesn't it complain that non-Jewish Israeli citizens are not allowed to keep and bear arms for self-defense but Jewish Israeli citizens are?" Can you verify this? I am not familiar with Israeli gun laws other than people don't have licenses, the guns do.

Now, what does this artcile have to do with Israel? Why even introduce it?