I sent letters off to Wu, Merkley, and Wyden regarding the NRA's brief on the McDonald case:
So far I've gotten two very different responses:
First from Wu ( <broken link removed> )
I was honestly surprised at how positive the tone was in Wu's statement. Whether he acts on it is TBD.
Unfortunately I wasn't surprised by Merkley's "response" ( <broken link removed> )
What a party tool...
McDonald v. City of Chicago, a pivotal civil rights case, is coming before the Supreme Court in March 2010. The Framers recognized that the right to self-defense is as fundamental a human right as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, years of misguided legislation has led to that right being infringed upon in many parts of our nation. McDonald provides a unique opportunity to restore this inalienable right to all Americans.
Several briefs have been filed in support of incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment. One of these has been submitted by the NRA, and it is currently backed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Unfortunately, I do not see your name as a supporter of this critical brief. I strongly encourage you to join your peers and make a strong stand in support of the Second Amendment by signing the amici curiae brief.
This issue is incredibly important not only to me, but to America as a whole. Your stance on this issue will factor heavily in my electoral choices in 2010 and beyond.
So far I've gotten two very different responses:
First from Wu ( <broken link removed> )
Thank you for contacting me to urge me to sign onto an amicus curiae brief in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case scheduled for Supreme Court consideration in 2010. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
The amicus brief you reference asks the Supreme Court of the United States to hold the Second Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that portions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states. Over many years, the Supreme Court has incrementally applied the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states through a process called incorporation. For example, the First Amendment currently applies to states, as has the Fourth Amendment, concerning unreasonable search and seizure. As of yet, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
I have long held that the Second Amendment does indeed give individuals the right to bear arms. Therefore, I will keep your comments in mind and will give serious consideration to signing the amicus brief.
I was honestly surprised at how positive the tone was in Wu's statement. Whether he acts on it is TBD.
Unfortunately I wasn't surprised by Merkley's "response" ( <broken link removed> )
Recently, I received the email you sent to my office through a third-party organization. I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch and please be assured that I closely review the thoughts expressed in such emails. I know that these third-party emails can be a useful tool to communicate your opinions.
If you would like to expand on the email I received through the third party, please feel free to contact me directly by using the webform at http://merkley.senate.gov/contact to send me an email. I value your personal stories and insights into the issues facing our state and the nation.
You can also visit my website at www.merkley.senate.gov for more information about my positions and to learn how my office can further assist you.
It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
What a party tool...
