Federal Govt. Files Brief In Support of the District of Columbia

[Well Regulated]

It's not April fools, but the government is playing us for one.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-1-11-08.pdf



If they thought the case should not have been brought before the Court, they should have argued that at the petition stage. They say it's an Individual right, just not for handguns or anything else they decide you can't have. In reality if the government can dictate what you can have and not have, that's no individual right, but an illusion and tool of oppression. There is no security for any firearm under their decree.

 

[mort]

I would like to point out that the first name on this brief is the legal council for the BATFE. Another black mark in their book.

I actually read the thing and got the jist that the government did not want any decision made by the supreme court to affect existing laws.

The OPs opinion that a right that can be arbitrarily reduced/modified/restricted is not really a right seems true to me.

I noticed on arfcom that a similar thread descended into anger and vulgarity rather quickly. I hope this does not happen here.

 

[Rich K]

If SCOTUS decides this case in our favor, that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and so on and so forth, what effect would this decision have on the BATFE? Would it severely hamper them and stop their behavior, or would they become twice as nasty as they are now?

 

[baz]

I don't think it would hamper BATFE until the laws that BATFE enforce are challenged and changed or overthrown. Of course, if NFA and GCA were to be substantially and effectively challenged by a suit in the wake of a pro-RKBA Heller decision, then the BATFE wouldn't have much to do. So the amicus brief is to protect its raison d'etre.

 

[TexasRifleman]

then the BATFE wouldn't have much to do. So the amicus brief is to protect its raison d'etre.

They can go after all those smokers and moonshiners

 

[riverdog]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that in Miller the argument was that a shotgun wasn't a military arm so wasn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, while now the BATFE is arguing that a shotgun is what DC residents should be allowed to use so they don't have to legalize handguns (and full auto weapons)?? Why am I not surprised?

 

[TEDDY]

History Of Batf

in 1968 batf was close to being disolved because they had nothing to do,the alcohol and tobacco manufactuers were regulared and in compliance with the law.there were 300 atf agents and the gov wanted to put them in sec.ser. or emergration.neather wanted the agents as they felt the agent wernt professional enough.the 1968 law revived the atf and away they went.theres 6000 of them now at $80000 a yr. :banghead:

 

[stevelyn]

there were 300 atf agents and the gov wanted to put them in sec.ser. or emergration.neather wanted the agents as they felt the agent wernt professional enough.the 1968 law revived the atf and away they went.theres 6000 of them now at $80000 a yr.

Sounds like the jack-booted sturmtruppen thugs of the waffen BATFEces have common roots with their SA and SS counterparts.

 

[SWMAN]

I suspect part of the reason for this brief is that the new AG is a liberal Republican judge from New York that Schumer supported for AG. He's pretty much a gun control advocate.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I hope we don't get a Liberal Republican from New York as the president.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

The DOJ filed this not the ATF see the other thread.

 

[DENALI]

Hey there Stevelyn how do like those Aleutian islands? As to the content of this thread, anyone else less then delirious over the prospect of nine lawyers deciding our future for US!

 

[riverdog]

Gunnerpalace:
The DOJ filed this not the ATF see the other thread.

First name on the list is:
STEPHEN R. RUBENSTEIN
Chief Counsel
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20226

 

[esq_stu]

If SCOTUS decides this case in our favor, that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and so on and so forth, what effect would this decision have on the BATFE? Would it severely hamper them and stop their behavior, or would they become twice as nasty as they are now?

Depends on whether the Court determines whether or not, as the Feds argue, the standard of review should not be "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny review would change everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

If that is the standard of review, 2A rights would be like speech, press, and religious rights. Many many Federal gun laws and rules could go out the window. For example, the need for an FFL for transfers, would, in my view, not survive a strict scrutiny standard.

The equivalent under the first amendment would be like requiring that only licensed dealers sell bibles or newspapers.

Moreover, BATFE would be cited for civil rights violations under 42 USC 1983 for just about everything they do now.

I can't see SCOTUS going that far. And yet . . .

 

[Gunnerpalace]

First name on the list is

Rest of the list?

Of yeah this guy isn't the director either.

 

[herohog]

No cussing here, just a statement of what, I believe, will happen if the SCOTUS comes down on the side of tyranny: "It's gonna get ugly up in here."

 

[Gunnerpalace]

herohog, You can say that again if things go bad, I seriously worry about the future of this country as a whole.

 

[Outlaws]

The Feds are squirming just as much as our side is...

b. The text and history of the Second Amendment
strongly indicate that the Amendment does not categorically
foreclose legislative prohibitions on particular categories
of “Arms.” The question remains whether the
restriction is reasonable. The right protected by the
Second Amendment is a right to “keep and bear Arms,”
not a right to possess any specific type of firearm. A ban
on a type or class of firearms, such as machineguns,
is not unconstitutional just because it is categorical.
A number of factors—including whether a particular
kind of firearm is commonly possessed, poses specific
dangers, or has unique uses, as well as the availability of
functional alternatives—are relevant to the constitutional
analysis.
History also supports that conclusion. Because
Founding-era militia members were expected to procure
their own firearms and to bring those guns when called
to service, see p. 16, supra, the militia could not have
been “well regulated” if individuals had unrestricted
freedom to choose which “Arms” they would possess.
Rather, it was essential to the effective operation of the
militia as then constituted that government officials be
authorized to specify the weapons that individual members
would be required to procure and maintain. The
Amendment’s text and history thus suggest that the
substantive right secured did not guarantee an unfettered
choice of “Arms.”

They are saying when called to duty, we are told what arms to bring. Which I don't dismiss totally, but it is a BS reason. Why would they not want us to bring M16/M4's like is standard issue?

 

[Outlaws]

Does anyone know how to get in touch with Levy? I would like to send him an email.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

From what little of this brief I've read, I can tell you that this brief needs to be placed back upon the now naked imbecile who dressed himself with it, woven out of the fabric of pretense, pretext, fabrication, dissemblance, falsehood, subterfuge, prevarication, and sized with a loathing for the Constitution and the rights of the people from which these people have been granted a job they now endeavor to vitiate with their misprision.

This brief appears to be an attempt to browbeat the Justices on the Supreme Court, and "point the way" for the Justices to once again trash the rights of the people for no good reason. These people harbor an unwarranted fear of us being armed. If they continue on this unwarranted path, their fears will be justified and well deserved.

What ever they have up their sleeves will not stand up to an armed populace. That is why they are so desperate to disarm us to the point we become insignificant. There is no other rhyme or reason for these draconian infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. For every "reasonable restriction" they can conjure, there is a better counter argument and more sound alternate solutions to what ever they see as a reason why we should be disarmed.

Always, you hear their lies of "This is all this bill will do. It won't affect you law abiding citizens at all." Well, I'm law abiding and I can't buy a new machine gun. I'm law abiding and I can't carry a gun in a school, or court house, or police station, or a church in some states, or on an airliner, and a myriad other places.

I'm not a felon, I'm not a lunatic, I'm not a wife beater, I've been honorably discharged from military service, yet I've got to pass a background check because our elected officials refuse to hold dangerous criminals in prison or in an institution and I've got to prove I'm not one of them.

These people, living off our nickle(the taxes we pay), shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion in this case. It's self serving, has no basis in anything constitutional I can see, and these people are grossly out of line with the intent of the judicial system's duty to protect our rights, not erode them.

I could rant on this for hours. I could pick this brief apart and trash every argument they present. It is full of pretense, assumption, and just plain begs for a healthy dose of reductio ad absurdum. But, anyone with an understanding of the Constitution and the law allowed under it can see through this balderdash they present. It's inherent in our nature, and cannot be prescinded from our need to defend ourselves with that which our intellect can devise, for that is all we have, even for defending ourselves from our own kind. But until we need to use them for what ever purpose, they are harmless. So, I'll conclude with a statement I think makes all their ranting, raving, and fear mongering look absolutely absurd: The simple keeping and bearing of arms is totally and absolutely benign and innocuous.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

 

[F4GIB]

From NRA:

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.

 

[Outlaws]

Once again the NRA is scared to mention the word "machinegun" even though the brief filed by the Feds states that word 10 times. The Feds are not the least bit concerned with handguns.

 

[Outlaws]

Oh wow. I just got an email from Mr. Levy.


I blocked out the important personal information, but left the text. Here is mine to him.... (I am sick and on some very good cold medicine, my spelling is terrible)

Mr. Levy,

Thank you for all the hard work so far. If you have a moment, I would appreciate it if you would read a quick though I have.

I just read the brief posted online at SCOTUSBLOG by the Department of Justice, more specifically, the portions were they are attempting to preserve previously passed legislation (NFA, GCA, etc.) Here is what I find to be wrong with their stance:

The government, in the filing, is arguing that the founders wrote "a well regulated militia" as a sort of subsection to the peoples right to bear arms, as the government states was a common form of writting in those times. Then they go on to say that since it says "well regulated" that some "reasonable restrictions" to the right to bear arms are constitutional. That theory is flawed. Reasonable restrictions could be placed on what "arms" you show up to serve with, but "well regulated" is in reference to the subsection of the law, the actual "right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

And here is his response....

Thanks for the email ... We'll be addressing the DOJ brief when we file our own (Feb 3) ... and several of the amici will also be addressing the DOJ brief.
Regards,
Bob Levy

30 minute response time. If only our elected representatives could act like this.

 

[ctdonath]

Methinks nearly everyone on DC's side is utterly failing to notice that the Supreme Court has ALREADY acknowledged an individual right and has cut off all discussion of "state-regulated militia" issues by writing THE QUESTION the way they did.

Let's look at it again:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This is not phrased in terms which recognize any doubt regarding the existence of "individual RKBA" - and this question was written by SCOTUS. Correct me if I'm wrong: this literary construct axiomatically recognizes that individuals have Second Amendment rights, and proceeds to address an issue solely on that ground. Unfortunately for them, DC et al spend an awful lot of time chasing a red herring.

Methinks a significant part of that precious 30 minutes of oral arguments will involve publicly berating DC counsel for wasting time ignoring the point.

 

[F4GIB]

From: Jeff Knox, The Firearms Coalition,
www.FirearmsCoalition.org

In typical, "screw your friends and appease your enemies," Republican fashion, the Bush Justice Department has filed an amicus brief defending the DC gun ban in the DC v. Heller case currently before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department calls on the Court to acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual right, but asks that the Circuit Court's decision in the case be reversed and remanded (thrown out and sent back to the Circuit Court) with instructions to determine whether DC's laws unreasonably restrict resident's ability to exercise their rights. It appears that the "pro-gun," Republican Department of Justice fears that any decision from the Supreme Court which held that banning any class of weapons was an infringement of the Second Amendment, might open the door to challenges against bans on dreaded machineguns.

It is worth noting that Congress recognized back in 1934 that
banning machineguns would be a violation of the Second Amendment so they instead devised a plan whereby they could control such firearms with burdensome taxes and paperwork restrictions.

It was not until 1986 that the first ever federal firearms ban was enacted when NRA accepted a ban on private purchase or possession of any newly manufactured machineguns as an amendment to the McClure-Volkmer, Firearms Owner's Protection Act. At that time, NRA-ILA chief, Wayne LaPierre declared that repeal of the machinegun ban would be NRA's top priority in the next session of Congress. Even though Mr. LaPierre has been the Chief Executive Officer of the organization for more than 15 years now no bill to repeal the '86 ban has ever been put forward by NRA.

If the Supreme Court follows the government's request in this
matter, no firm decision about the practical value of the Second
Amendment could be expected for at least another four years; many thousands of dollars, and at least two new Justices from now.