Making Excuses For Bush Administration’s Stance On D.C. vs. Heller

It’s no secret to readers that I, along with millions of other Americans, are fed up with how the Bush Administration is handling District of Columbia versus Heller, the well known D.C. handgun case. First, the U.S. Solicitor General, Paul Clement, submitted a brief representing the view of the Bush administration that they didn’t agree with the lower court’s ruling that said the current ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

Not too long after that, others began weighing in on Bush’s brief. Robert VerBruggen in the American Spectator said the brief was the “dumbest ever“, while Ken Blackwell of Townhall called it a “terrible mistake“.

I have since began reading about the excuses for what the Bush administration did and said and the general consensus for lame excuse of the year is that the reason was because of the president’s obligation to “uphold the U.S. Constitution”.

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post puts it this way.

Clement plays dual roles — to represent the position of the Bush administration before the court but also to defend the laws passed by Congress. His brief said federal gun-control laws could be endangered by the decision that struck D.C.’s law.

Todd Gaziano and Andrew Grossman make their point at the Heritage Foundation.

In addition, the U.S. Justice Department has a traditional obligation to try to defend existing federal laws whenever a reasonable argument can be made to support them, and there are a number of federal gun laws that the department would feel duty-bound to preserve.

While some choose to make excuses as to why the Bush administration took this route, it is appalling to millions of gun owners who thought this president was on their side. Those making the excuses are also saying that we should be looking at what the brief gives to Second Amendment supporters not what it takes away. HELLO??

Nobody knows how the Supreme Court Justices will react to the suggestion from Clement that the case be sent back to the lower courts for a clearer more defined ruling as to what is unconstitutional and what isn’t. This of course could tie up this case for decades, at which time God knows what the makeup of the Bench will be at that time.

Tom Remington