Sunday, January 13, 2008


From the NRA Institute for Legislative Action website:
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.


Anonymous said...

"What would you have me do?"

Educate and persuade Romney on the meaning, purpose, and importance of the 2nd. I believe he just has not given the issue enough attention to undestand--he does not yet have all the facts and understanding on this.

"...I will do my level best to carry a pro-gun message to the nominee."

There you go!

Anonymous said...

That is one large milque toast statement!

Is the NRA afraid to tell the truth about the DOJ amicus brief? That it gives justification to bans and flatly states that too broad (read correct) interpretation of the 2A will endanger their (govt's) defacto ban on machine guns.

The NRA needs to man up and tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

You're kinda right here, but I think that the NRA's positional statement very precisely addresses the SG's statements. There, it does open up the SC's scrutiny of the "locked" and/or "dis-assembled" requirement of the DC law and it's affect on ones right to defend themselves; among other things. Both sides of this issue, are not totally correct, but they are not totally wrong either.
The NRA has to address each of the stated issues in the appeal. Their forthcoming brief will be written similarly.
Let's all hang together on this one and write your letters to your representatives and senators. It does make a difference. AND VOTE!
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a career "business law type". I don't see what is currently going on as un-anticipated.
I'd also like to hear from all of the other Gun Rights groups out there. It'll be interesting to see what actions they take, including the issuing of statements, or additional suits, briefs, lobbying, etc.
Life Member