GUN Bush & Co. chime in on the Heller Case

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by [DWI], Jun 24, 2008.

  1. [DWI]

    [DWI] Master of Nothing

    Aug 6, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Reposted with Bush & Co. instead of big boys to avoid confusion.

    Basically Bush via various individuals and institutions.

    Cliffs (compared to the argument they are cliffs, but basically they are worried about undoing gun control is how I read it)

    A. The court of appeals correctly held that the Second
    Amendment protects an individual right to possess
    firearms unrelated to militia operations. By its plain
    text, the Second Amendment secures a “right,” a term
    that the Constitution consistently uses to refer to individual
    freedoms rather than state prerogatives. The
    text also makes clear that the right is not limited to
    members of a select body (like today’s National Guard)
    but extends to “the people” generally. The Second
    Amendment’s placement within the Bill of Rights,
    and its use of a phrase (“the people”) that has acquired
    a settled meaning in surrounding constitutional provisions,
    reinforces the most natural reading of the Amendment’s
    The Second Amendment’s prefatory language, which
    refers to the “necess[ity]” of a “well regulated Militia,”
    does not negate the Amendment’s operative guarantee.
    It was common in constitutional and statutory provisions
    at the time of the Framing for prefatory language to
    identify a goal or principle of wise governance narrower
    than the operative language used to achieve it. The logical
    connection between militia operations and a general
    right of private gun ownership was particularly clear
    when the Second Amendment was adopted, since the
    Framing-era “Militia” was not a select body like today’s
    National Guard, but instead comprised the free white
    male citizenry of fighting age, whose members were expected
    to bring their own weapons when called to service.
    B. Although the court of appeals correctly held that
    the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it
    did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s
    Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions
    of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the
    Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights
    does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically
    invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment,
    properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation
    of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context
    and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such
    as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms
    because those persons have never been understood to be
    within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the
    Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly
    no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation
    of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
    When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession
    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 considers
    (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions
    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 enforcement
    of the relevant restriction. Cf. Burdick v.
    Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992). Under that intermediate
    level of review, the “rigorousness” of the inquiry
    depends on the degree of the burden on protected conduct,
    and important regulatory interests are typically
    sufficient to justify reasonable restrictions. Ibid.
    The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have
    adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s decision
    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 prohibiting
    the possession of certain firearms, including
    machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second
    Amendment point to a more flexible standard of
    review. Just as the Second Congress expressed judgments
    about what “Arms” were appropriate for certain
    members of the militia, Congress today retains discretion
    in regulating “Arms,” including those with military
    uses, in ways that further legitimate government interests.
    Under an appropriate standard of review, existing
    federal regulations, such as the prohibition on
    machineguns, readily pass constitutional muster.
    C. Given that the D.C. Code provisions at issue ban
    a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a
    way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,
    those provisions warrant close scrutiny under the analysis
    described above and may well fail such scrutiny.
    However, when a lower court has analyzed a constitutional
    question under a standard different from the one
    adopted by this Court, the Court’s customary practice is
    to remand to permit further consideration (and any appropriate
    fact finding or legal determinations) by the
    lower courts in the first instance. Several factors counsel
    in favor of following the Court’s customary practice
    here, particularly the lack of case law from this Court
    fleshing out the potentially relevant doctrines and subdoctrines
    that might inform the Second Amendment
    analysis. Accordingly, after taking the foundational
    steps discussed above, the better course would be to
    remand the case for further proceedings consistent with
    the Court’s opinion.

    A letter to Bush from member of congress

    There is apparently another letter floating around in congress at the moment is what I am reading.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  2. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Aug 30, 2003
    Likes Received:
    thread deleter
  3. [DWI]

    [DWI] Master of Nothing

    Aug 6, 2000
    Likes Received:
    I know I wanted the link to be less confusing.

    Just sharing some digging as waiting is starting to kill me.
  4. Fire Sauce

    Fire Sauce New Member

    Dec 21, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Hilton Head Island, SC
  5. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    May 16, 2001
    Likes Received:
    A quick scan indicates support for individual rights, but also support for infringement of those rights.

Share This Page