[bruinbirdman]

I think it is rather a strategic tactic. The case involves the District of Columbia, governed by the U.S.A., and an individual challenging a firearms ban.

Rather than asking the SC to decide in favor of DC, or an individual in a narrow sense, the DOJ is asking for a broad decision with national scope.

Since it is the first 2nd amendment case in 60 years, lets get a broad and longlasting decision.

yitbos

[tarheelswamprat]

Rather than asking the SC to decide in favor of DC, or an individual in a narrow sense, the DOJ is asking for a broad decision with national scope.

With respect, bbirdman, it is evident from your comments that you simply do not understand this case or the nature of the DOJ's amicus brief. They are NOT asking for a "decision with national scope". Supreme Court decisions are by definition of national scope.

What they are actually asking is for the Court to set a so-called "lesser standard" for the rights of individuals. You know, those "unalienable" rights "endowed by their creator"? In plain language, what the government is asking is that the Court make a meaningless, lip-service acknowledgement that yes, there is an "individual right", but it is subject to "reasonable" restrictions. And guess, what, the government gets to say what is "reasonable".

They want the Court to affirm the right, and then define it into meaninglessness. In other words, no right at all...