The Second Amendment a second class right?

Enter Stage Right ^ | Jan 21, 2008 | Charles Bloomer

[Gunner9mm]

The Solicitor General has issued a truly bizarre amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Heller vs. District of Columbia, the case that is challenging the District's ban on handguns.

The Solicitor General's Office represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court and, as in this case, presents the administration's position. Needless to say, the Solicitor General's Office has considerable influence before the court.

The brief presented by the Solicitor General makes some valid points upon which Second Amendment supporters can agree. The brief states the administration's opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that laws restricting that right should be subject to "strict scrutiny" – meaning that legislators must weigh the proposed benefit of the law carefully before infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Additionally, the brief expresses the opinion that the District of Columbia's strict gun ban should be overturned. So far, so good.

The Solicitor General's brief also takes a bizarre turn. While the Solicitor General calls for "strict scrutiny" for gun laws in general, he calls on the Supreme Court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" as it determines Heller vs. DC. The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right.

[Barnacle]

Whatever you say Newbee.

Waco
Since Dec 18, 1997

?;^T

[budwiesest]

Needless to say, the Solicitor General's Office has considerable influence before the court.

It should be subordinate to the language in the Constitution. Otherwise, it invites politicization. And that's a bad thing.

[budwiesest]

Thanks again Joe, for all that you do. Yours is the most important ping list for Americans ( a unique tribe, though they may not realize/appreciate it). Every other pales in comparison.

Thanks again.

[El Gato]

Maybe Gun Owners of America or some other group should also file comments on the Solicitor's comments about the Second Amendment being a non-fundamental right

Likely several amici briefs for Heller, perhaps plus Heller's own brief, will address the matter. Those aren't due until Feb. 4th.

[El Gato]

They are FREAKED at the thought of most, if not all of the existing state and Federal laws will be negated by the USSC.

Indeed they are. Panicked might be a more accurate word. You can smell the fear in the government's brief, the amici brief of Janet Reno et al, and the brief of DC. The former two reek of it.

and may, in fact, specifically narrow their decision to the DC case...

That's exactly what they said they will do when they specified the question:

Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other fire-arms for private use in their homes?

and warn the feds and states they need another approach along guidelines xyz.

There's the rub. What sort of xyz will they say is "reasonble". The US government wants: "heightened judicial scrutiny" an a "more flexible standard of review" apparently not so heightened and flexibile enough that all current and past federal gun control laws would sail easily above the standard and slip past the flexible standard.

I just don't anticipate the USSC will rule that all existing gun law is unconstitutional.

Of course they won't, even though it is, and if the standard the Circuit court applied were left standing, very few, if any, federal gun control laws would pass muster. But what they will do is give a rational for their answer to the question above. If the answer is the same as the Circuit court's, then every or alsmot every federal gun control law is doomed, it just has to wait it's day in court, where Heller will be used as precident to drive a stake in it's heart. If the SC rules as the US government wishes, we'll at have an aknowledgement that the second amendment protects an individual right, but one which can be infringed for almost any governmental purpose. If, OTOH, the SC goes with DC and Janet Reno et al, well have a "right of the people" that does not protect an individual right at all.

[El Gato]

You're right, but short of taking up arms (while keeping that, as always, as an option) how do we convince this President to correct the errors in this brief?

Unless they would file an amici brief for Heller, supporting the DC Circuit's ruling, it's too late, briefs for the petitioner, that is DC, are closed. They aren't going to do that, because as they admit in their brief, that would be the thread that once pulled would lead to the striking down of almost all federal gun control laws, save perhaps "felon in possession" and even more likely bans on carry in federal buildings, military bases, etc, but not National Parks.

[El Gato]

Our 2nd Amendment is the ‘teeth’ of the Constitution.

I prefer to think of it as the "Reset Button", see tag line.

[mr_hammer]

“...is more like guidelines than actual rules”

Sounds like the Code, Pirates that is...

[Centurion2000]

I don't think FREAKED is strong enough language for this. For 65 years the government has been duciking this issue, refusing to explain it in clear language, and repeatedly passed more unConstitutional laws in an attempt to disarm us. Meanwhile, law abiding gun owners have been patient, exercised incredible restraint and paid up by law.

If they rule in our favor, we realize that there is still a little room left in the system to work within it.

If they rule completely against it, they've tipped their hand saying that the Constitution is just a piece of paper and that nothing short of armed rebellion will ever fix it.

This ruling is THAT important.

[jonascord]

You will also note that the media, the candidates, both Houses, every State and Local government body and the Bush Administration are all loathe to admit that Heller Vs DC even exists. Are we the only ones watching the radar?

[nonsporting]

...laws restricting that right should be subject to "strict scrutiny" – meaning that legislators must weigh the proposed benefit of the law carefully before infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

I'm sorry. The 2ndA says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Argument over. Contact ready.

[ctdonath2]

Problem is, in light of such stark wording, methinks they can't help but overturn those three laws ... and in doing so, they have to justify it with wording that will result in overturning 922(o) (the post-1986 full-auto ban). Maybe not instantly, but shortly thereafter. The pent-up demand for full-auto is HUGE*, the NFA community is relatively impeccable in its quality of citizens**, and the barrier to entry is relatively low***. This, of course, scares the willies out of those tasked with keeping the peons in their place.

* - "Wouldja like that AR15 for $1200? or for another $200 and a little paperwork get 'da happy switch' to go with it?"
** - Since 1934, only one crime was committed with an NFA-registered MG ... and that was a cop. 922(o) only kicked in in 1986. Other NFA stuff is very rarely abused and very rarely "leaks to the dark side".
*** - $200 was outright prohibitive when NFA was enacted, but the dollar has devalued to make it little more than a secondary sales tax.

[B4Ranch]

I don’t carry a gun…

… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

[Squantos]

We got what we voted for.......lesser than.

Never again will I vote for the lesser of two evils.