Statement of the National Rifle Association By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox On The Pending U.S...

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

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.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

Wayne LaPierre at Ames Straw Poll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnZHAB9F90A

If you are elected President of the United States, how would your presidency affect firearm owners?

“As President, I will not sign any treaty that impedes, in any way, the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Only judges who have a demonstrated commitment to interpret the Constitution as our founders intended will be nominated to the federal bench.

I would ask Congress to send me for my signature, legislation to repeal the D.C. gun ban, legislation to allow reciprocity among states with concealed carry rights and other pieces of legislation to restore rights that prior administrations have eroded.

In fact, I authored the Hunter amendment, Rol call 241 in 1999, to allow DC residents to keep and bear arms.”

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/03/interview-with-duncan-hunter.html

I signed up to receive news from the NRA and received that new article the other day. Wish all NRA members would write the NRA and ask them when they plan on coming out with their endorsement. Now is the time to do it! GO FRED!

Have you heard about the $10 at 10PM challenge? Asking all FredHeads to give $10 at 10PM to push Fred’s truck over the 1,000,000 goal! I will be donating $10 for my hubby and $10 for me at 10PM. GO FRED!

umgud said: "It seems to me, then, that SCOTUS has to deliberate and answer at least 2 questions, first the right, then infringement."

Exactly right.

Unfortunately, I don't own the CD-ROM edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, or I would look up "infringed" to see how it has been used over the centuries. Its usage in 1789 will be of extreme significance to the question of what level of scrutiny is deserved.

I really see no way to claim that "shall not be infringed" is any less constraining than "shall make no law".

So now it only applies to law-abiding citizens and lawful purposes???

Interesting observation and it opens a whole bigger can o' worms.

The terms "law abiding" and "citizen" are linked since in many if not most states violators at the level of felony will lose certain "rights" for life like the right to vote or posess firearms.

Does it really say that in the amendment?

I think certain terms are strongly implied and therin lies some of the confusion. For example those folks who oppose gun ownership state that a militia means a "national guard." Yet when the 2nd was written there was no such thing as a "national guard" which was not created under rule of law until just prior to the first world war. In the days of the Founding Fathers, in their own words via documents they authored, the "militia" consisted of ALL the people except for a few public officials. "People" was usually construed to mean white free males between the ages of 17 and 45.

However based on the subsequent 17 amendments to the Bill of Rights under our Constitution, this would be extended to a larger and more diverse group yet still applying the restrictions of "law abiding" which automatically by definition excludes all illegal aliens. The definition of "keep and bear" is "own and carry." How many states besides Vermont and Alaska have this under color of law? How many states put draconian restrictions not appearing in the wording of the Amendment? If something is not specifically codified under law is it automatically allowed or forbidden?

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.