Administration Rankles Some With Stance in Handgun Case (Presidential amicus brief on DC Gun Ban)

Washington Post ^ | 01/20/08 | By Robert Barnes

[ctdonath2]

For context ... This is fully legal, and is currently for sale:

$125,000 plus $200 tax & a little paperwork and it's yours.

(Oh, yeah, the tank behind it is also legal, privately owned, and fully functional.)

[ctdonath2]

You need to explain the strict-scrutiny principles behind such restrictions. Just drawing on hot-button emotion-stirring terms is inadequate.

[Copernicus]

The point it is trying to make is that the US Gov't has for a long time had certain restrictions on what kind of weapons you could personally posess - like a nuclear weapon or a tank. The appeals court that over-turned the gun ban did so by applying a test that could potentially also over-turn a lot of other laws, like preventing criminals from getting guns or private ownership of heavy weaponry or of weapons that can get through a metal detector.

Now I understand that some of you think these kinds of laws are unconstitutional, and they may well be, but they are the status quo and have been for the last century and defending them on the books is hardly the kind of thing you need to flip out on the president over.

For reasons that baffle me, these threads always produce at least one defender of the faith who defend the indefensible through hell and high water.

While your commitment is admirable, your arguments are not.

The 21st Century has begun with the example of a unelected, non-government individual who seeks to acquire, possess, transport and deploy nuclear devices at the time and place of his choice. His name is Osama Bin Laden and he could not more perfectly personify the adage "When weapons are outlawed only outlaws will have weapons"

While this example is unlikely to realign your thoughts about the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment I nevertheless commend it to your attention.

You may also wish to review this link though it is equally unlikely to realign your thoughts. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957984/posts

Best regards,

[William Tell]

ctdonath2 said: "Using a nuke will, with reasonable assurance, severely harm a great many innocents/noncombatants."

Sounds like Romney would consider it "unusually lethal" then. Our Founders never intended that the government was to be in the business of deciding which arms are protected and which aren't. If you are are campaigning for such a power, then you should investigate the amendment process.

I'm sure that you think that you know how to draw the line. I am equally sure that others on this thread would draw it elsewhere. It doesn't change the fact that the Second Amendment bars the government from making any such decisions.

Are you against amending the Constitution for some reason?

[ctdonath2]

Regarding this issue? yes. All this talk of “reasonable restrictions” lacks rational objective basis - which, if applied, reveals that nothing need be changed.

The only restriction on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment. It exists so individuals, and groups thereof, can responsibly use arms against those who irresponsibly use arms. It is precisely those situations that would warrant “reasonable restrictions”, a strict-scrutiny pre-emptive legal recognition that certain behavior invariably warrants a forceful response, and thus that behavior may be forbidden in law - not so much as a restriction, but as a warning. Short of WMDs, ownership and use may be done responsibly, and responsible possession & proper use may not be infringed (but cross the line into irresponsible and the rest of us will do something about it). WMDs are unique in that simple storage alone is risky (see the Bhopal disaster) and there is practically no use which does not unacceptably risk innocent life.

I see no need to amend the Constitution in this matter. Have what arms you like; you do something stupid/dangerous with them, and others may use their arms to disarm you with extreme prejudice ... and they have the opportunity to give you fair warning in written law via strict-scrutiny analysis.

[mbraynard]

It's a problematic discussion and I don't think there's really a point in discussing it. Unfortunately as time has gone by and the lethality of weapons have increased - and will continue to increase - the options are to either amend the Constitution to clearly deliniate what types of weapons are permitable, to not amend the constitution and try to apply the 2nd amendment in a way that does deliniate, to not deliniate at all and presume that 2nd amendment prevents any restrictions whatsoever (death pact) or to ignore the Constitution entirely and lose the 2nd amendment rights (equally bad).

Unfortunately the solicitor was overly broad in what he was trying to do. The truth is, for now, a line does need to be drawn on who gets posession rights (criminals, illegals, etc) and what they can posess. Unfortunately, though I support rights to nearly every weapon you can conceive of, bringing this up gets you demonized pretty quickly.

I have a place in VA and would be inclined to have a place in DC instead (where my office is) but cannot bare the idea of not having my 10 at hand.

[ctdonath2]

clearly deliniate what types of weapons are permitable

The point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that individuals, and groups of individuals, can pre-emptively have whatever arms are necessary to efficiently and decisively defeat enemies. To operate on a notion of what is "permitable" is to serve the needs of our enemies (be it common thug, terrorist, tyrant, or foreign power).

Focus on "strict scrutiny". You're jumping to hysterical conclusions ("death pact") without laying the groundwork of principles. Work out the principles, and you avert being demonized - or demonizing others yourself.