Bush Administration’s Brief A “Terrible Mistake”

Just when lovers of liberty thought that Second Amendment issues were making a turn for the better in this country, lawyers for the Bush Administration may have set efforts back to Clinton era days.

Last year an Appeals Court ruled that the current gun ban in Washington, D.C. was unconstitutional, a ruling that put huge smiles on gun rights promoters across this free country. In Washington, D.C. it is against the law to possess a handgun and any ownership of a rifle or shotgun must be stored in such a way that it is rendered useless. Obviously D.C. doesn’t believe its people have a right to self defense.

An appeal of that ruling was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest court in the land opted to hear the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. The Court is expected to hear the appeal sometime this spring, perhaps March, and render a ruling as early as June.

Several sides of this issue have delivered briefs to the Supreme Court in order that the court consider their positions. Lawyers for Washington, D.C. submitted briefs over a week ago stating that their argument will be that the Second Amendment only gives states the right to form militias and that even if the government granted individuals a right, D.C. has a right to “reasonably” restrict gun ownership.

Mayors from 11 cities signed a brief warning the Supreme Court that it can’t take away the city’s power to regulate guns. The mayors of Baltimore, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Oakland, Calif., Philadelphia, Sacramento, Calif., San Francisco, Seattle, and Trenton, N.J. believe they have a right to control who can own a gun and for what purpose it shall be used.

Once the District Court of Appeals ruled against the D.C. gun ban and the Supreme Court announced its decision to hear the case, it seemed that this might have emboldened people to challenge existing gun laws.

In San Francisco, a gun ban voted on by the residence in that city in 2005, was ruled unconstitutional by a judge who said that because the state of California allows gun ownership, the city can’t preempt that right.

A group of 47 U.S. Senators are pushing for a bill that would allow the open use of guns in our national parks. Restrictions on the use of guns has been in place since the mid 80s, under the Reagan administration, that prohibits guns from being open and accessible.

Then the end of last week, lawyers for the Bush administration presented their brief condemning the ruling of the lower court in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case. I and thousands of others couldn’t believe they would do such a thing and for what reason if only to retain power of government over the people to strip us of our rights. I was extremely unhappy to say the least.

Robert VerBruggen in the American Spectator said the argument presented in Bush’s brief was the “dumbest ever“.

Today, Ken Blackwell of Townhall.com, says that Bush’s legal team has made a “terrible mistake”.

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.

The brief is a disappointing about face for a Justice Department once lauded for its ardent defense of Second Amendment rights.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey owes gun owners an explanation for this late betrayal.

It is reprehensible why the Bush administration would take this position. We can only hope and pray that the members of the highest court in this land will consider the position taken by Bush’s lawyers as a direct violation of the right of the people guaranteed under our constitution and rule according to the written law and uphold the lower court’s ruling.

Tom Remington