Thanks for the heads up on the brief (isn't the internet great!). I have only been reading about this from various sources, not just the one on this thread or from some politician. The brief tries to settle things down, define and argue the original intent of the founders in a good and historical manner, but the part that throws me is "
C. THE COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE LOWER COURTS TO PERMIT THEM TO ANALYZE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE D.C. LAWS AT ISSUE UNDER THE PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY". I'm not sure what to think about what the grand strategy is on that move.
I think they want to re-write the two part test that was applied so that, if it were accepted by the SCOTUS, couldn't be interpreted as a defacto overturning of all laws restricting gun ownership. The two part test didn't take anything into consideration other than itself.
The court of appeals adopted a two-part test, under which a particular weapon is a Second Amendment "Arm[]" if it (i) bears a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and (ii) is "of the kind in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted.
I don't even get the 2nd part of a test because the only weapons around back then were laughably inefficient, though I guess they did have 'handguns' and 'longguns.'