How about reading the freakin’ brief yourself? Like good liberals, FReepers will swallow anything the LAT, NYT, AJC or any other liberal rag says if it fits their established prejudices and irrational fears.
Assuming from your comment that you have read the brief - perhaps you can enlighten us?
I have, yesterday. The article is a reasonable, if somewhat hyperventilating, summary of the brief.
But in case you, or others, have not, have at it. "But here is a direct quote from the brief, but by all means read the whole thing:
Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
And another
The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review. Just as the Second Congress expressed judgments about what “Arms” were appropriate for certain members of the militia, Congress today retains discretion in regulating “Arms,” including those with military uses, in ways that further legitimate government interests. Under an appropriate standard of review, existing federal regulations, such as the prohibition on machineguns, readily pass constitutional muster.
This is where the headling comes from, I think:
Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms.