Government files amicus -- on DC's side!

[Pred]

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it. Some quotes:

"When, as here, a law directly limits the private pos-
session of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in
Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires
that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that con-
siders (a) the practical impact of the challenged restric-
tions on the plaintiff’s ability to possess firearms for
lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature
and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and
(b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforce-
ment of the relevant restriction.

The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have
adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s deci-
sion could be read to hold that the Second Amendment
categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms”
that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted
by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the
constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibit-
ing the possession of certain firearms, including
machineguns. However, the text and history of the Sec-
ond Amendment point to a more flexible standard of
review."

:The determi-
nation whether those laws deprive respondent of a func-
tional firearm depends substantially on whether D.C.’s
trigger-lock provision, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, can prop-
erly be interpreted (as petitioners contend, see Br. 56)
in a manner that allows respondent to possess a func-
tional long gun in his home.8 And if the trigger-lock pro-
vision can be construed in such a manner, the courts
below would be required to address the factual is-
sue—not fully explored during the prior course of the
litigation—whether the firearms that are lawfully avail-
able to respondent are significantly less suited to the
identified lawful purpose (self-defense in the home) than
the type of firearm (i.e., a handgun) that D.C. law bars
respondent from possessing.9
To the extent necessary, further consideration of
those questions should occur in the lower courts, which
would be in the best position to determine, in light of
this Court’s exposition of the proper standard of review,
whether any fact-finding is necessary, and to place any
appropriate limits on any evidentiary proceedings.
Moreover, even if the existing record proved to be ade-
quate, initial examination of those issues is typically
better reserved for the lower courts."

"CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm that the Second Amend-
ment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights,
secures an individual right, and should clarify that the
right is subject to the more flexible standard of review
described above. If the Court takes those foundational
steps, the better course would be to remand. "

As I read this, the (Bush) Dept of Justice is asking that the Court hold it to be an individual right, but not strike the DC gun law, instead sending it back down to the trial court to take evidence on everything from how much the District needs the law to whether people can defend themselves without pistols and just what the DC trigger lock law means. THEN maybe it can begin another four year trek to the Supremes. That is, the DoJ REJECTS the DC Circuit position that an absolute, flat, ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, and contends that it might just be justified, it all depends on the evidence.

There was a saying during my years in DC that the GOP operated on two principles: screw your friends and appease your enemies. Yup.

· Parker v. DC

Of Arms and the Law: Government files amicus -- on DC's side!

[Mooseman684]

Sounds and reads like normal "Political Doubletalk" to me...

[ArkansasHunter]

Sounds like a crop of Poo Poo

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Which agency filed this? Was it the Bush led Justice Department?

If the court erred in the way they judged the merits of the law then they should revisit and apply the law the way they should. However what I am reading is that they are wanting the courts to rule on it as a Flexible Right. Rights and Flexible used in the same sentence

So much for having a Gun Friendly Administration.

[Coeloptera]

Now do you guys believe that Republicans aren't any more on our side than many Dems?

We are fortunate, however, that it is being sent back down for review. If we're lucky, DC won't be able to provide compelling evidence.

So what happens to the ban during this process? Does it stay up since it was in an enforceable status when this started?

- Coeloptera

[Windwalker]

The Supreme Court does not have to accept this amicus(friend of the court) plea by the Justice Dept. and can still rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right and is not subject to any flexible standard of review. But, will they have the intestinal fortitude to do it?

[troy2000]

As has been pointed out here before, at least anti-gun Democrats don't make any bones about it. These people, however...here's one time I hope Bush's appointees to the Supreme Court are genuine conservatives, instead of what passes for one too often these days.

[jashoffa]

Remember John Roberts said at his confirmation that he thought the prior decision from the court in the 1930's case side-stepped the issue and He feels that they should have made a more clear decision. I think they will be looking to clear up the 2nd amendment issue. We can only hope that this decision can have the wide sweeping effect on concontrol that Roe v. Wade had on Abortion. (to clarify, I don't side with Roe v. Wade I just mean in the scope of it's effect for the issue) I anticipate they will decide that an all out ban is not constitutional but that some regulation of firearms is allowed. Only time will tell what the end result will be.

[stikbutter]

I watched a video on u-tube, where the FBI say that are forefathers were terrorists. Terrorists against England, its really funny how as time goes on the different agencys and the gov. as well interpet the past and the constituion.

[Seabeescotty]

I cannot believe this CRAP!! Who is doing what for who to get something like this mess of drivel on paper? All they need to do is look at the crime in the capital, and at the improvements made with the passage of CCW and castle doctrine laws in other states. There is no intelligent way to refute the evidence! They can cook it and twist it all they want, but they can't refute the fact that we are safer out here than those sitting ducks in DC! Scotty

[Reddbecca]

Lemme just see if I get this right. The government filed this friend of the court brief on their opinion, but the Supreme Court isn't bound to follow and abide this or any other brief as they make their determination, right?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Reddbecca

Lemme just see if I get this right. The government filed this friend of the court brief on their opinion, but the Supreme Court isn't bound to follow and abide this or any other brief as they make their determination, right?

Right. The Justice Department is sticking its oar in the water, but the Attorney General can't tell the Court what to do. They're just weighing in on D.C.s side to try to influence the decision.

The court may very well decide that, like any other right we have, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable interpretation and controls. Freedom is not the same thing as anarchy.

But if they're being honest, they'll also rule that DC's laws are so unreasonable they amount to a de facto ban, and are therefore unconstitutional.

[Windwalker]

Reddbecca, you have it exactly right.

[two-70]

i agree with scotty

[ghost_raven]

Well, I think it's politicians (Bush included) trying to save their own butts from, eh... urinated-off constituents with guns. Pretty sad.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by ghost_raven

Well, I think it's politicians (Bush included) trying to save their own butts from, eh... urinated-off constituents with guns. Pretty sad.

No; if that were the case they'd file against the city of DC, not for them.

[ghost_raven]

Did I misunderstand? I thought this was about the current administration trying to help keep the DC ban going. If I did misunderstand, all apologies. I've been taking a med recently which apparently has a side effect of making me a bit light headed.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by ghost_raven

Did I misunderstand? I thought this was about the current administration trying to help keep the DC ban going. If I did misunderstand, all apologies. I've been taking a med recently which apparently has a side effect of making me a bit light headed.

No; looks like I misunderstood you. Apparently you're saying Bush supports a gun ban in DC because he's there. I thought you meant he didn't want to tee off the gun-owners nationwide.