More News Coverage Of Bush DOJ Backing Gun Regulation In Supremes Brief

Updated Jan. 14, 2008, 10:36 am -- This just in from WorldNetDaily.

Updated Jan. 14, 2008, 8:44 am -- SCOTUSblog weighs in on the DOJ brief regarding the Heller/Parker case before the Supreme Court.

Not unexpectedly, hardened criminals are hoping some of their convictions can be overturned if the DC handgun ban is, well, overturned.

From Newsmax: Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) prez Paul Helmke saluted the Bush administration "for recognizing the need for limits on gun rights."

Plus, a "Save The Second Amendment" petition is being circulated by Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor, the chief deputy republican whip in the U.S. House. Click here to read the request for your signature, and check out a powerful video.

Says Rep. Cantor: "This is just outrageous. The Solicitor General is the Federal Government’s lawyer. So, now we have the federal government using our tax dollars to argue for a delay on a ruling concerning our fundamental rights."

Well said Congressman.

*********
A distubing note this afternoon: The writer of the DOJ brief supporting the DC gun ban appears to be Stephen R. Rubenstein, chief council for Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. His boss is the combative Mike Sullivan, the interim BATFE chief whose confirmation as permanent head of the agency has been stalled by several pro-gun senators.

Speculation is now rampant that the DOJ is concerned that BATFE could be put out of a job because they likely would no longer be permitted to regulate firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. "Regulation" being defined as having oversight on the manufacture and sale of firearms. BATFE, as history buffs and scholars know, is a vestige of Prohibition days. Once the ban on liquor was ended in 1933 with passage of the by the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which repealed the 18th Amendment -- the only time in our nation's history that one amendment has been used to undo another), the federal cops battling illegal booze had nothing to do and their supporters in Congress quickly gave them a new task to keep them in their federal jobs -- regulating firearms.

Okay, here is a roundup of news coverage and commentary on the DOJ brief, and a response from the NRA . . .

From the Los Angeles Times: "In their legal battle over gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, gun- control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration. But that's just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld."

David Codrea's War On Guns: "I trust no one is surprised by this fraudulent neocon pawn in the White House? You shouldn't be. They made their position crystal clear back when then-Solicitor General Ted Olson submitted briefs arguing that "the Second Amendment [is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."And naturally, government--the body the Second Amendment was intended as a people's check and balance against--is the arbiter of who and what."

Read the brief filed by the Department of Justice for yourself.


And here is how the National Rifle Association responded (full text):

Statement of the National Rifle Association by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox on the pending U.S. Supreme Court case:

"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."

Stay tuned . . .