search
top

NRA Statement on Solicitor General’s Brief

Can be found here:

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the whole thing. While the Solicitor General’s brief does agree with an individual rights point of view, and while it also does not call for DC’s handgun ban to be upheld, what it is intended to do is preserve the existing federal firearms laws, by applying a level of scrutiny that would uphold them. What angers me is that The Administration is dragging other issues into this case which are not currently at question. This case is not about the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act of 1968. It has nothing at all to do with federal regulations on machine guns. The issue here should not be what standard of scrutiny upholds the current federal gun laws. The Second Amendment ought to receive the highest level of scrutiny as we would apply to any other part of the Bill or Rights. By calling for less than that, I still stand by my assertion that Bush has slapped us in the face, and I wish NRA would have issued a stronger statement on this one.

5 Responses to “NRA Statement on Solicitor General’s Brief”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    They slapped gun owners in the face with a fish. Sushi-grade fish, with some tasty sauce, but still, a slap in the face with a fish…

  2. straightarrow says:

    Perhaps they’re just being pragmatic.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    Perhaps they’re just being pragmatic.

    Actually, I think they are…

  4. Sebastian says:

    They are being diplomatic. No doubt they think that’s being pragmatic, but in this case, they are being thankful the Administration used lube. We should demand to be treated better. I should do a post about this.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    The more I read the thing, the less … cohesiveness it has. I guess I can see the logic in it; but if you follow the logic, it’s a naked grab for power. Sadly, those seem to be working. It’s almost the same type of logic used in the Raich case, and we know how that (rather narrowly) ended up. The advantage here is that we don’t get as much cognitive dissonance among the small-gov/conservative types.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » But I Still Love Him! - [...] weak statement on this matter can be easily explained with this [...]
  2. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » NRA’s Position on DOJ Brief - [...] sure to make my next wheelbarrow a bit less laden with crisp, unmarked bills, I felt the NRA statement…
top