GOA Calls On Bush To Withdraw Anti-Gun Brief
The amicus brief, filed last Friday in the D.C. gun ban case of D.C. v. Heller, argued that any gun ban — no matter how sweeping — could be constitutional if some court determines that it is “reasonable.”
“If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General’s line of argument,” said Larry Pratt, Executive Director of GOA, “D.C.’s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional, even if the court, as predicted, holds that the Second Amendment protects ‘individual’ rights.”
The Solicitor General’s suggestion that comprehensive gun bans are constitutional if some court determines they are “reasonable” was enthusiastically greeted by anti-gun zealots — probably because it represents the lowest standard of constitutional review.
“In contrast to other provisions in the Bill of Rights, which can only be trumped by ‘compelling state interests,’ the Second Amendment would be relegated to an inferior position at the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder, should the Justice Department prevail,” said Pratt.
“Moreover, under the administration’s amicus brief, a national ban on all firearms — including hunting rifles — could be ‘constitutional,’ even if the Supreme Court decides — on ample historical evidence — that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.
“Rather than argue that ‘shall not be infringed’ is a categorical prohibition on government gun-banning, the administration has chosen to align itself with those who do not believe in self defense or civilian gun ownership,” Pratt concluded.
As a result, GOA put out a public call for the Justice Department to withdraw its anti-gun brief, and invited the National Rifle Association to join it in fighting this anti-gun development.