Gov. files Amicus on DCs side

[Guest 2HOW]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file.php

[Guest Len]

The pdf of the actual brief can be found here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf

Its an interesting argument that the Justice Dept makes. They argue, correctly IMHO, that rulings in courts of law must be fact-based, and that certain facts in this case (ie, whether a long gun with a trigger lock can be a viable means of home defense in DC) were not fully argued in the proper (lower court) venues.

The essence of the brief is that the 2A conveys an individual right, BUT govt. has a legitimate interest in regulating said right, IF the facts bear it out. The final part of the brief then says that the facts have not been sufficiently aired and that the court should remand the case back to the DC courts to do so.

Hmm, seems to me the Bush DOJ is trying to have its cake and eat it too, since they argue, again correctly IMHO, that a full-fledged striking down of the DC law would open up the possibility of overturning all sorts of federal gun laws on constitutional grounds.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of those with more knowledge of the law than I on this.

[Guest 270win]

I think the case will end up forcing DC to register handguns of people who want them registered after 1976 and allow possession of them in the home for self defense purposes (unlocked). I do not see the Supreme Court forcing DC to change its 'may issue' (almost no issue) carry license system. DC will probably have to come up with a system of new laws for the transportation of handguns (the district already seems to have them for long guns which is disassembled), but DC will not turn into Virginia where you can openly carry a firearm without a license. It will probably have handgun laws worse than Maryland regarding transport without a license (possibly in a locked case unloaded and in the trunk...which Maryland does not go that far when having a handgun in a car without a license....just in the trunk in a holster).

[Tim Nunan]

This action does make one wonder if there is any difference between political parties.

[sigmtnman]

Additional perspective on the brief:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmIyM2ZlMDhkOTFkMTc5ZGZhMjU0ZDE4N2QzN2U2YzM=

[Marswolf]

This action does make one wonder if there is any difference between political parties.

Not much, if any.

[Guest David Waldrip]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=newsHead1 align=middle>Briefs Filed in D.C. Gun Ban Case

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=copy>Friday, January 18, 2008

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=copy>As the date for Supreme Court argument in District of Columbia v. Heller approaches, the filing of briefs has begun. The District filed its brief last week. In addition, various “amicus curiae†(friend of the court) briefs were filed with the court.

U.S. Department of Justice Brief

Gun owners are understandably dismayed about the brief filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Although the DOJ brief was filed on the same day as “friend of the court†briefs supporting the District of Columbia (DC), it does not support DC’s position but rather its own unique point of view—a view with which the NRA still disagrees.

The District is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals and find that the Second Amendment does not protect a broad individual right. DOJ is supporting a different view—that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and that the case should go back to the lower court to apply a different standard of review. DOJ suggests applying a lower level of constitutional scrutiny than the Court of Appeals adopted. The NRA disagrees and believes the lower court’s ruling should be upheld.

NRA believes that the right to arms is a fundamental right; as with other fundamental rights, laws restricting that right deserve the highest level of scrutiny. The NRA and those seeking to overturn the gun ban believe that the scope of the Second Amendment is clear. Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion, this case is not about felons or machine guns. This case is about law-abiding people who want handguns and long guns for self-defense. The total ban on self-defense gun ownership in D.C. is so severe that it should be found unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, and we will make that point in our “friend of the court†brief when it is filed next month.

Finally, while NRA strongly disagrees with many of the arguments in DOJ’s brief, there are a few areas of agreement. Notably, DOJ agrees that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and that it applies to the District, even strongly hinting that under the lower “heightened scrutiny†it supports that D.C laws could be unconstitutional. This was not the position of the previous administration. In fact, Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno and Solicitor General Seth Waxman, along with other DOJ officials from the Clinton administration have filed their own brief in support of the District, arguing that there is no individual right at all to possess guns outside of government service.

DOJ also recognizes that the Second Amendment protects a right to self-defense, and that the right to arms was a pre-existing right protected, but not created, by the Constitution.

If you would like to express your opinion of this brief directly to DOJ, please call the Department’s Press Office at: (202) 514-2007.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3388

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[towerclimber37]

The pdf of the actual brief can be found here: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf

The essence of the brief is that the 2A conveys an individual right, BUT govt. has a legitimate interest in regulating said right, IF the facts bear it out. The final part of the brief then says that the facts have not been sufficiently aired and that the court should remand the case back to the DC courts to do so.

Hmm, seems to me the Bush DOJ is trying to have its cake and eat it too, since they argue, again correctly IMHO, that a full-fledged striking down of the DC law would open up the possibility of overturning all sorts of federal gun laws on constitutional grounds.

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of those with more knowledge of the law than I on this.

I may not know much about the laws. but I LIKE the idea of the federal government having less power where my freedoms are concerned. The DOJ is concerned about having federal gun laws taken away. sounds like a good idea to me. put more responsibility into the citizens' hands! That wasn't a problem for our forefathers..why should it be a problem now?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but keeping the Federal busybodies out of our affairs is a good thing!

[Guest jackdog]

Maybe because the political elites and thier big business masters want us all disarmed

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

Maybe because the political elites and thier big business masters want us all disarmed

Amen. And, they want us disarmed before the country has an economic collapse brought on by politicians with no backbone. I love that Ben Franklin quote, something like, once the people find out they can vote themselves money, the republic will soon fall. Prophetic, instead of a "republic" we'll be a "recorporate."