Gun Case Causes Bush Administration Rift

NY Times ^ | March 17, 2008 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[neverdem]

Supreme Court Memo

WASHINGTON — Suppose that after decades of silence on the subject, the Supreme Court was to decide that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership, as opposed to a right tied to service in a militia.

Such a ruling would be a cause for dancing in the streets by proponents of the individual-rights view — or so it might seem. After all, the great majority of federal courts have long refused to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right, and the Supreme Court itself has said nothing for nearly 70 years.

But nothing is quite that straightforward when it comes to the case to be argued Tuesday on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law. Judging by the sniping from within the Bush administration at its own solicitor general, Paul D. Clement, for a brief he filed in the case, a long-awaited declaration by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right would not be nearly enough.

The local law, which dates to 1976, is generally regarded as the strictest gun-control statute in the country. It not only bars the private possession of handguns, but also requires rifles and shotguns to be kept in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock. Mr. Clement’s brief embraces the individual-rights position, which has been administration policy since 2001 when John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, first declared it in a public letter to the National Rifle Association. But the brief does not take the next step and ask the justices to declare, as the federal appeals court here did a year ago, that the District of Columbia law is unconstitutional.

Not that the solicitor general’s brief finds the law to be constitutional, or even desirable...

[neverdem]

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Amicus Brief

[sageb1]

Please warn of .pdf docs

[the anti-liberal]

Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.

[the anti-liberal]

Very nice:"Tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an unarmed people." This simple observation captures the essential nature of the Second Amendment.

[the anti-liberal]

Well, it deserved to be repeated - what can I say?

[de meanr]

Not as slanted as I expected from the NYT. I think I’ll try to browse some of the briefs later today.

[G.Mason]

"Please warn of .pdf docs"

When you slide your cursor over the link it should show you what kind of file it is.

[Canedawg]

Umm, no. You have to right click properties to see what type of file it is.

[2Am4Sure]

Ummm, yes, at least in Firefox

[TalonDJ]

Are you using internet explorer? go to the ‘view’ menu and selected ‘status bar’. Now mouse over the link.

[RockyMtnMan]

So if, God help us, the supremes do go with a “militia” view of the 2nd. What is to stop individuals from forming private “militias” for the purpose of buying fire-arms? Kind of like the way Dallas county (Texas) liqueur establishments have “clubs” you join to get around the dry county laws.

What is the standard for a militia? Is it a state by state sort of affair and how loose is the interpretation of a militia?

I’m truly interested to here what other Freepers think on the militia angle. If they are going to play semantics with words then I would recommend individuals doing the same and joining their state “militias”.

[The KG9 Kid]

Liberal gun grabbers claim that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a collective one.

Never mind that they don't like militias either.

... Even your state's Air National Guard, much less a private 'disorganized' militia that Timothy McVeigh would try to get started.

[Canedawg]

Yep, IE, but its no big deal. It doesnt bother me if a pdf doc opens. thanks.

[longtermmemmory]

you forget the leftist view also includes onerous regulation to the point of de facto prohibition.

(in order to get a gun permit you must have approve from the government, in order to get approval from the government you must fust have a permit)

[RockyMtnMan]

I’m referring to something more in line with the spirit of the constitution. A state militia that is beholden to the Governor and state assembly. Not a anti-government entity but one focused on the defense of the home state during a time of crises (as intended): http://www.cosdf.us/

I would never be a part of any organization that was anti-government.

I view the 2nd as a individual right and not a collective one. I’m just playing what ifs here.

[NFHale]

Read what the Founders wrote about the “organized militia” and the “unorganized militia”. Not what some liberal/socialist POS “intellectual” writes, or thinks, or conjectures about it.

Self defense is THE most basic HUMAN, CIVIL, and CONSTITUTIONAL right - against individuals, against an insane, murderous government, against anything or anyone that threatens your life and your liberty.

Self defense with THE most expedient tool ever designed, the firearm, is your right. Period. And yes, the Founders said “Arms”, not “sporting purpose” nor “single-shot muskets”, nor “duck hunting guns”. Arms meaning standard, military-pattern weapons, should the need ever arise.

Rights are only taken away because you LET them be taken away. The right still exists; your ability to back it up with force is diminished. How many Swiss Jews went to the Nazi gas chambers? None. Why? Switzerland is an armed camp, and always has been. Theyvalue the lives of their citizenry and know that the best way to prevent invasion from without or civil insurrection from within is with an armed, “well-regulated” (trained), citizenry.

It all depends on how far you are willing to step back away from the line, what you are willing to put up with. Where do you draw the line? Ask the Founders. They knew their breaking point. They found a line they would not back away from anymore. Where is our line? When they start using all of those fancy paramilitary police swat teams going house to house to search for “illegal” guns? They did it already - in New Orleans, and now in Washington DC too.

This is NOT something open for negotiation, and our position, always, should be one of open contempt and complete disregard for ANYONE who proposes limiting, regulating, or taking away a Constitutional right.

Without the Second, the other nine are merely words on paper.

[RockyMtnMan]

We are in agreement. However, there is the matter of training. During the time of our founders men were generally well versed in fire-arms. Today, when I go to the range, I am often horrified at the lack of disciple/training. So much so I sometimes worry for my own safety.

While it is the individuals duty to seek proper study/training there is no mandate for it. This lack of training/education puts everyone at risk and in some cases is what drives the Liberal anti-gun machine. Fire-arms (of any type) should be made available to all citizens, however I would like to see some basic training as a requirement. Otherwise many of these untrained individuals pose a risk to me and my family, thereby violating my rights.

I don’t think it has to be anything extensive just basic safety training and some proof that such training was passed before being allowed onto a public range. I don’t want a bullet to the head because some jackass doesn’t know to treat a gun as always loaded.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Read what the Founders wrote about the “organized militia” and the “unorganized militia”. Not what some liberal/socialist POS “intellectual” writes, or thinks, or conjectures about it.

"No Freeman shall ever be disbarred from the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense."
-- John Adams

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed with Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the Government are afraid to trust their people with arms."
-- James Madison

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue if the law-abiding were deprived the use of private arms."
-- Thomas Payne

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them."
-- Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason

Courtesy of Glenn Beck

[brityank]

“Strict scrutiny,” the most protective standard, accorded to rights the court deems “fundamental,” almost always dooms to failure an effort at government regulation. The briefs on the individual-rights side of this case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, argue for applying strict scrutiny, and it is Mr. Clement’s refusal to embrace that standard that has caused such consternation.

The government’s brief argues for judicial review that would be “heightened” but not strict, employing a sliding scale that balances the impact that any restriction might have on the “protected conduct” of private gun ownership against “the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement” of the restriction. The District of Columbia’s law “may well fail such scrutiny,” the brief observes.

We already have such a "sliding scale" on most all of the other Rights, that does not make them -- or the USSC -- correct in its interpretation.

• 1^st Amend.: Speech -- cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre absent an actual fire.
• Religion: Snake and Peyoté handlers prohibited.
• Press: No free access to broadcast of print media except on allowance and restrictions of the governments agent.

Are those restrictions reasonable -- yes. Are they Constitutional -- no. That is also why the Founders gave us a Republic instead of a mob-rule Democracy.

The twisting that various legislative bodies have taken WRT the Second violates the plain language ... shall not be infringed. To countenance that a man may not provide for his own protection and defense, or to restrict his method due to erroneous assumptions of staré decisis cases is unconstitutional, and should be struck down fully. To do otherwise allows that the criminals can usurp the rights of the law-abiding, and wastes time and treasure from our government.

[AuntB]

Nice list, thanks!