Front Sight, Press

Misfire at Justice from the Wall Street Journal
The Second Amendment’s right to bear arms has rarely been considered by the Supreme Court, but this year the Court is hearing a case that could become a Constitutional landmark. So it is nothing short of astonishing, and dispiriting, that the Bush Justice Department has now weighed in with an amicus brief that is far too clever by half.
http://tinyurl.com/3dxnzq

Bush Administration Wrong on Guns
Every Supreme Court term has at least one “blockbuster” case that send shockwaves not only through the legal community, but also through the general public. Cases like the Kelo decision, allowing governments to convert your house into a shopping mall (provided it isn’t too nice of a house), the first and second Carhart decisions, denying and then allowing restriction of partial birth abortion, or the recent Parents Involved case restricting the ability of school districts to use race in their admission processes, shape the public consciousness about the Court and its actions.

Although there are several important cases this term, none will have the effect on the public’s mind that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller will have.  In that case, the Supreme Court will finally take up one of the great, undecided matters of constitutional law:  Whether the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms.  Whatever the Court decides, it will have implications on electoral politics for the next generation.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has ignored an opportunity to push the Court toward the right on the issue, and transform the politics of the 2008 elections in the process.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24582

LATE BETRAYAL ON GUN RIGHTS BY KEN BLACKWELL
Et tu, Brute? In the waning days of the Bush Administration, Justice Department lawyers have filed a curious amicus brief in the DC gun ban case before the US Supreme Court. The attorneys took a middle-of-the-road approach to Second Amendment freedoms. They argued that gun ownership is not a “fundamental” right. Instead, they say, it is a right deserving only an “intermediate” level of protection.
http://tinyurl.com/2cbjx7

CANDIDATES MUST TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN DC GUN CASE BY SANDY FROMAN
The Bush administration missed a golden opportunity to stand up for the Second Amendment when it filed a Supreme Court brief that only gives lukewarm support to gun rights, asking the Court to send the case back down to apply a lesser standard of legal protection to the Second Amendment. Presidential candidates should tell us where they stand on the government’s position.
http://tinyurl.com/3ya8xt

Hoping Something Will Stick To The Wall: Gun Ban Groups’ Briefs
Nearly two dozen briefs have been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by individuals and groups supporting D.C.’s bans on handguns, having a gun assembled within the home, and carrying a gun within the home. 

On the whole, the briefs misrepresent the text and history of the Second Amendment, and misrepresent the Supreme Court’s past decisions relating to the Second Amendment. They falsely claim that D.C.’s gun laws have reduced crime, falsely claim that upholding the appeals court’s decision will necessarily lead to invalidating many other gun control laws at the federal, state and local levels, and falsely claim that if the amendment protects an individual right to arms, the Court should let elected officials ride roughshod over the right anyway. Many of the briefs cite questionable studies conducted by researchers that support gun control, and that were paid for by foundations that endorse gun control. The briefs can be viewed at www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html, but here are some highlights. 

The Year of the Gun Written by Profs Glenn Harlan Reynolds & Brannon P. Denning
Arguably, gun-rights supporters have much more at stake in Heller than their opponents.  The Court’s adoption of the individual-rights reading may be little more than symbolic; if not, it may take years before the Court deigns to clarify its decision.  But a rejection of their position would virtually repeal the Amendment, perhaps emboldening gun-control proponents whose initia­tives were often stymied by legislators’ invocation of the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, a loss might galvanize political action, as losses in Kelo and Bowers v. Hardwick did for property-rights and gay-rights activists.
http://tinyurl.com/283cm4

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO BAN GUNS BY JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
A lot of Americans who believe in the right to own guns were very disappointed this weekend. On Friday, the Bush administration’s Justice Department entered into the fray over the District of Columbia’s 1976 handgun ban by filing a brief to the Supreme Court that effectively supports the ban. The administration pays lip service to the notion that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an “individual right,” but their brief leaves the term essentially meaningless.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott58.html

THE SELL-OUT…John Lott Interview UP!
It’s about 8:45PM Thursday and out DOWN RANGE Radio interview with John Lott is up. This is a wide ranging interview on the DOJ brief and the Fred Thompson campaign.

DC, ATF, 2ND, SCOTUS, HELLER AND SHEPHERD
Spin aside, there are a few irrefutable truths coming from the Solicitor General asking the Supreme Court to send D.C versus Heller back to trial court for a “reconsideration.”
http://tinyurl.com/2acrkc

DOJ SUPPORTS D.C. AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS INTERPRETATION
[At least so says Jonathan Adler. I still don’t like it.]
http://volokh.com/posts/1200277286.shtml

PUBLIC ‘THREATENED’ BY PRIVATE-FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
Government argues gun restrictions ‘permitted by the 2nd Amendment’
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59674

SAD STUFF
American Jewish Committee files amicus brief in support of the DC handgun ban. It seems that they don’t remember their own history very well. Joe Huffman offers a superb refresher course.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/01/11/SadStuff.aspx

Government Brief May Affect GOP Primaries: Gun control hasn’t been a huge issue in the GOP primaries. This is largely because gun control has ceased to be a huge issue in any election anywhere, as Democrats have largely given up on promoting it. They like to win elections, see. But now the Bush administration has filed an amicus brief in what is the largest 2nd amendment case to come before the Supreme Court in more than seventy years. And this amicus is sure to roil the NRA and may have a large impact on the primaries…
http://tinyurl.com/38saa8

NRA Comments On Government Brief In Heller: …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. (Is this why “right to carry” requires a permit?)
http://www.nraila.org/

Justice for gun owners
By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
Martin Luther King Jr. put it best: “A right delayed is a right denied.” The lesson appears to have been lost on the Department of Justice and Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in the amicus curiae brief submitted recently for the government in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which challenges the city’s 31-year-old handgun ban, a horrible gun law that has had its day in court and lost. In a transparent exercise of political pandering, Clement and his colleagues named on the brief have strenuously, and correctly, argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, yet they insist that every restrictive gun law currently on the books should stand. They want this case sent back to the lower courts for further consideration. Translation: Legal sleight of hand is being used to make the Second Amendment a right “in name only.” And Clement appears to suggest that the longer the Supreme Court can put off deciding whether a restrictive gun law violates that important civil right, the better.
http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/422415.html