Posted on 02/18/2008 10:17:17 AM PST by neverdem
If you think the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms in all homes is a reasonable regulation under the Second Amendment, you'll love the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Bush administration in D.C. v. Heller, now before the Supreme Court.
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) previously stated position is that the Second Amendment secures a right of individuals not restricted to militia service. But astonishingly, the Justice Department now recommends an elastic standard for determining whether a handgun ban is reasonable. According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.
Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.
That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.
Rather than a foursquare pronouncement that the D.C. handgun ban is unreasonable by any standard, the Justice Department has essentially endorsed years of depositions and expert testimony, and a rerun before a less hospitable Supreme Court.
In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
see:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
With respect to the DOJ’s pitiful position, it is plain that a lot of people, when it comes down to the wire, are just fearful of allowing citizens today to enjoy and exercise the full liberties they had when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I just saved http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/
LOL! Thanks anyway.
Uh, 'scuse me, but does this remark refer to the current administration?
Cities and local municipalities have long had the right to restrict firearm usage (think Tombstone). It's the federal laws that are unconstitutional re: the 2nd Amendment.
Regarding the Justice Department, while certainly a part of this administration, it is well peopled by career bureaucrats and clinton holdovers and, like the State Department, does not necessarily reflect the wishes of the President.
There is no way a DOJ brief on a case of this magnitude would go forward without approval at the highest level.
I wish these people would post a one-click download for the whole thing. I don’t have time to download and save all of those separately.
You mean in the same way that Condi is always on the same page as President Bush? He's a bit busy saving Africa these days and one doesn't know just how involved he actually is with this case.
Peas and apples. Yours a case where Bush has just plain conceded because he can't control people in the field who have already proven the capability of setting him up to take the Plame.
We're talking the Solicitor General in DC here, an appointed position.
i hope john lott is reading this and sends out his own brief in answer....
Number 1:
Government has no rights, only powers.
Number 2:
The 10th Amendment in the Consitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Meaning that the 2A enumerates rights to the people all the way down into states and cities. It can't be taken away by any 'right' (as you claim) or new power in any town or city.
“Cities and local municipalities have long had the right to restrict firearm usage”.
That's already been considered and rejected by smarter men than you, Robert Levy. DC still requires that long guns are stored in an inoperative condition within households, and that in no way enhances the argument of the plaintiff in the case.
The question put before the court is simple and direct. It's a pity that even pro-gun people can't understand it.
IIRC, I read four briefs: Heller's, the one from 31 states, the one from a bipartisan majority in Congress and the brief from the Solicitor General. All were pdfs. I wouldn't be surprised if they all of the others were pdfs.
My computer crashes if I try to open a pdf with too many windows open.
Oh please, that hyperbole is only even remotely plausible if the Supreme Court can sufficiently torture the meaning of "shall not be infringed" down to "reasonable relation" scrutiny, and I don't think that a majority of them are that brazen to attempt such bald-faced preposterousness.
To all gun-grabbers: Read my tag line!
The bush administration shows it’s true colors via the DOJ. All the people all the time, disarmed is the goal
Yes, even in DC...
A bit of caution here: The Second Amendment doesn't mention felons or the mentally ill, only "the people." It has fallen to other authorities to restrict those groups. Because we have allowed those "authorities" to do so, we have paved the way for them to restrict certain types of firearms from the general public. In essence, we traded our freedom for a bit of perceived security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.