Posted on 01/12/2008 1:44:11 PM PST by GunsareOK
2008-01-12) On Friday the Bush administration filed an amicus asking the Supreme Court to remand the Parker case (“DC gun law case”) back to the District of Columbia to come up with a ‘softer standard of review’ on what constitutes reasonable gun regulations. In doing so, Bush strikes a major blow against all Americans in the on-going struggle over the scope of individual rights.
Filed through the Department of Justice (DOJ), the administration’s stated purpose is to protect a host of federal laws that restrict private ownership of firearms. DOJ argues in its brief that the same reasoning which allowed DC Circuit Court Judge Silberman to conclude the Second Amendment is an individual right could also be used to moderate federal gun laws, not just those in DC. The Bush administration wants to keep big government strong, and so weighed in against gunowners.
Can government regulate lawful gun ownership out of existence? That is what DC has done, and what is being contested. In weighing in, DOJ cited (as example of a law they want to keep) the mis-named “Firearm Owners Protection Act” of 1986. FOPA was originally put forth as legislation to protect people to lawfully transport guns through prohibitionist states. An amendment attached at the last minute also banned sale of newly made machine guns to anyone other than police or military. Such guns were already the most heavily regulated of firearms, and had never been tied with crime, so the move was purely political. Nevertheless, the National Rifle Association (which promoted FOPA) signed off on a deal, abandoning a narrow base of collectors in order to win an interstate commerce protection for the rest of its members.
Friday’s brief from DOJ asserts that the administration likes the power Congress gave it in 1986: a mechanism for regulating guns out of private hands. Bush officials don’t want to give it up. Their position: DC can’t regulate guns out of existence. That’s what GOP bureaucrats are for. An “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment runs contrary to their interests in keeping control, hence their brief today. They ask the court to remand the case back to the previous appellate court to come up with a more “flexible” standard.
What DOJ asserts is almost a “Dred Scott” sort of argument. In 1857, the Supreme Court used gun ownership, in part, to uphold a twisted line of reasoning for why non-whites do not have rights: If a negro was free and equal, then he could own a firearm, and everyone knows he can’t own a gun, therefore he is not free and equal. Today’s Bush brief is along the same lines: If the Second Amendment recognized a real individual right, then the federal government could not regulate some guns out of existence. But since everyone knows some guns can be banned then obviously this is not the full individual right that the DC Circuit court said it is.
Superficially this brief does not ‘side’ with either pro- or anti-gun positions, but in practice it is a win for anti-gun forces. The potential impact is huge. This move will chill law enforcement agencies from participating in an amicus supporting individualist right arguments. Worse, it probably loses a swing vote in Justice Kennedy, who favors big government regulation, and will now have cover to stick with his statist sensibilities. If so, then the best we could hope for would indeed be what the administration has asked, that the case be remanded back to DC for consideration of a “softer standard of review” of gun laws. (This means DC gets another bite at the apple for regulation, and that if the case should advance again, then it can do so with the potential for finding there is indeed an individual right – but one that it is ‘okay’ for government to infringe in far more ways than we could ever dream of today.)
As a legal argument, DOJ’s position could not have been tenable had there not already been on the books a federal law that regulates guns out of existence (in this case, fully automatic firearms for serious collectors.) As such, the present situation shows the folly of making deals and selling out even a part of the community. FOPA would not have become law in 1986 had not NRA signed off on the deal. Now, two decades later, that deal may become the basis to sink the fundamental legal case of our lifetime. It won’t take long for gun grabbers to now ask NRA “which time were you telling the truth – when you agreed that machine guns were not protected by the Second Amendment (1986) or when you say all private ownership of firearms is protected by the Second Amendment (2007)?”
What processes internal to the Bush administration would result in this terrible position are so far a mystery. Nevertheless, in the end it doesn’t matter. The scorn and derision of all people who value the Bill of Rights must rest with the man who was charged with its protection, and who failed it: George Bush. Unless his party – at all levels – swiftly and unequivocally repudiates his move, there is clearly no home for gunowners in the GOP. No guns - no votes.
The wind of change blows a chill across the land.
—b—
BUMP.
actually i think this shows that GWBush is a lame duck as far as the bureacrats of DC are concerned.
He is powerless to stop the state department and likewise he is powerless to influence the rank and file DOJ lawyers.
These are the UNELECTED pushing this.
President GWBush is powerless and impotent.
‘Compassionate Conservatism’ (aka common RINO-virus) at work.
Can Bush fire any of these people. I look at what is going on and it scares me. Taking our rights away with guns, not listening to the American people who are pissed about not securing the borders and letting illegals in, illegals taking many jobs which Americans for years have supported their families and keeping wages down when the economy is questionable. I for one am pissed at congress and the president with the Treaty of the Sea treaty, etc. WAKE UP AMERICA !! VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT !!!!
Elections have consequences.....
What’s W trying to do, make Hilary look good?
Why should he, he was ready to sign a new AWB in 2005
What the hell is this administration thinking? First he signs the Veteran’s disarmament act, and now this.
As I read it, Bush has made little or no effort to control any of his agencies—the Justice Department, the CIA, the FBI, the State Department—or to weed out the clintonoids and traitors that have consistently undermined him.
He failed to do so when he had the power. So he certainly can’t do it now, when he no longer controls congress and is a lame duck.
On the good side, he did put two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court, so maybe SCOTUS will just brush this feeble intervention aside and decide it on the merits.
I would like to know what reasonable gun regulation is?
If he keeps doing this I’ll never vote for him again.
BUMP
I can’t figure Bush out. Two good SC appointees and open borders at the same time. I will never understand this man.
This is what happens when you vote for the “Lesser of 2 evils”.
He is just keeping up the family tradition. His Father stabbed us in the back at a critical time and he has done the same thing several times.
For someone that is impotent, he is certainly doing a bang up job of screwing the heck out of all of us.
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.