It was expected that the Department of Justice would file a brief regarding the pending DC gun ban case before the US Supreme Court. The brief was filed on January 12, and came out of the office of Paul
While a section of the brief vigorously supports the individual right view of the Second Amendment, another section titled “Congress Has Authority To Prohibit Particular Types Of Firearms, Such As Machineguns” contains language that is nothing short of a disaster for gun rights advocates. Here is a sentence from the section: “Such a categorical approach would cast doubt on the constitutionality of the current federal machinegun ban, as well as on Congress’s general authority to protect the public safety by identifying and proscribing particularly dangerous weapons.”
It is hard to imagine what kind of firearm would be beyond the reach of Congress to ban, in the name of public safety, if the Court were to adopt the view of the Solicitor General.
Rather than advancing gun rights, the brief has set down the ground rules under which gun-banning politicians will boldly proclaim that according to the "pro-Second" Amendment Administration of President Bush, they can ban or regulate any firearm deemed a threat to public safety.
It is now likely that the District will concede that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms, but will quote the brief of the Solicitor General to support the District’s ban on handguns, because the District believes handguns pose public safety dangers.
It is true that for years, politicians, mostly Democrats, have always appealed to public safety whenever they wanted to advance some gun control scheme, but now with the imprimatur of a “pro-gun” Republican administration, those Democratic politicians have gained some legitimacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment