GOA's Message Goes Nationwide Following Yesterday's Supreme Court Hearing--
USA Today runs GOA editorial Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert8001
Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Courtheard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge tothe DC gun ban.
Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are fivevotes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is anindividual right. That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control andprotect gun owners' rights. But as we all know, that's where the battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.
More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorneyfor Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected inthe Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"? To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answersomewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standardlooks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with hisanswer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and SarahBrady.
Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the SecondAmendment. The language doesn't say anything about "reasonable" or"unreasonable;" it simply says the right of the people "shall not beinfringed." It's a shame that even people on "our side" don’t fullyunderstand that.
That's why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted,the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today's editorial.
The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was distinctive. Indeed we do.
GOA's brief says: [T]he argument that "the right of the people" is subject to reasonable regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second Amendment, reading the phrase -- "shall not be infringed" -- as if it read "shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety." "Public safety" is frequently a canard that tyrants hide behind to justifytheir oppressive policies.
Writing in USA Today, our attorneys HerbertTitus and William Olson stated: No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.
For the rest of the editorial:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/...ew-3.html#more
For the GOA brief, and other important documents and briefs in DC v. Heller:
http://www.gunowners.org/hellertb.htm