Obama Administration Takes a Position on Second Amendment

The Supreme Court must be interested in the case of Masciandaro v. US, which involves a man who was convicted of violating the gun ban in National Parks by having a loaded pistol in his vehicle. The Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration for its opinion, which you can read here. Lyle Denniston has a very good article about the opinion over on SCOTUSblog.

While recognizing there is a right to carry a firearm outside of the home, the Administration’s position is that this is only deserving of some form of mid-level scrutiny, and that a ban on carry is not among those regulations which could be deemed unconstitutional under this standard. The Administration is asking the Court here to deny review.

7 Responses to “Obama Administration Takes a Position on Second Amendment”

  1. Mobo says:

    I think the fedgov never had the authority to arrest and prosecute for “crimes” on federal land in the first place. The fedgov can purchase property within the states, but I think their authority to make and enforce rules on that property shouldn’t extend any further than that of any private property owner. I have no power as a property owner to arrest/detain a person who has broken my rules on my property beyond that which is necessary to stop an immediate threat, and the same should apply to the feds (except for DC, of course). The constitutional power to make rules and regulations does not necessarily include an open-ended police power. The land is still within the borders of a state, and the criminal laws of each state should apply.

    The national park rule change “gives” back to the states what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

    • ParatrooperJJ says:

      That would depend on the state. In Ohio and citizen has the same powers as a peace officer does to make felony arrests.

      • Ian Argent says:

        And I’d have to say rightly so. English Common Law arrest predates professional police forces.

        • Doc Merlin says:

          Which are really just the standing armies that our founders warned us about.

        • Ian Argent says:

          They’d have called you correct, as there really wasn’t a difference at the time. That having been said, a full-time police force doesn’t HAVE to be a standing army in peacetime; and is a government benefit for those not wealthy enough to afford their own detectives, prosecutors, and guards to gain access.

          I’m a lot more worried about federal police forces than those of smaller governments – for one the States are allowed organized militias. And if the states have cops, the feds ought to have some to watch those watchers. Just yank back their jurisdiction a little

  2. PT says:

    Lanny Breuer is listed as an author on that brief.

    How surprising, a gunwalker wanting gun control.

  3. MJM says:

    Hadn’t seen that, thanks. I want my candidate to affirm that restrictions on the exercise of the 2A are subject to strict scrutiny. It’s just not good enough to blather about “strong supporter of the Second Amendment.” Bottom line to lay public: “Strict scrutiny” test means real right to keep and bear arms; anything less means government still way to empowered to disarm you.


  1. SayUncle » Obama administration takes position on second amendment - [...] And recognizes the right to carry a firearm outside the home [...]