Can be found here:
The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the governmentâ€™s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is â€œcentral to the preservation of liberty.â€ The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban â€œa commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,â€ 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 governmentâ€™s position is also that a â€œheightenedâ€ 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 oneâ€™s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that â€œthe 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.â€ 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.â€™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.