Replies

The key case involved a Texas man named Timothy Joe Emerson who was indicted for possession of a Beretta pistol while he was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order obtained by his wife. A federal district judge dismissed the indictment on the grounds that it violated Emerson's Second Amendment rights, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court judge and ordered Emerson to be tried on the charge.

In its ruling, the appeals court included a lengthy discussion of the Second Amendment, concluding that the amendment "protects the rights of individuals, including those not actively a member of any militia . . . to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons." It was this view that Olson's briefs explicitly endorsed.

But the appeals court also ruled that the Second Amendment is subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions . . . that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." It said the prohibition on gun ownership by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order was such a reasonable exception, a view that Olson also endorsed in urging that the Supreme Court not to review the case.

an individual's right to possess firearms.
At the same time, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer said the case need not test that principle now.

Wouldn't a test help the cause better?

Why this choice?

It said the prohibition on gun ownership by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order was such a reasonable exception, a view that Olson also endorsed in urging that the Supreme Court not to review the case.

Yup,this is spin worthy of Carville. Bubba-2 and company are trying to convince everybody they stand by the second amendment,while making sure they maintain the ability to violate everybody's rights.