NRA's Stand on DC case

[larrymeyer]

Just received this e-mail today !/14/08

Statement of the National Rifle Association
By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox
On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case
In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents' homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.'s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government's recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is "central to the preservation of liberty." The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban "a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice," the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

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.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

[sjl127]

You know, I'm not sure, today, who the NRA is working for...

[MarcS]

Just remember that the NRA did not support this case from the beginning. They're late comers to this game. If you want to fight for your second amendment rights the choice is clear: Gun Owners of America.

[Wasz]

Basically the gist of this whole thing seems to be that if we lose it can set some bad things in motion. If we win then we over throw the law, but it won't really change anything else. It doesn't take into scope state laws (which is part of why they picked DC). So it seems to some of the more conservative on lookers that there may be more risk than possible reward. Thats just what I have gleaned from some of the stuff Ive read on this.

[Willie D]

This is why I won't support the NRA. The NRA is in the business of keeping the NRA in business. Period. I don't want my money going to fund an addition on Wayne LaPierre's summer home.

[Skuggi]

besides all that this needs fixed

The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of citizens to own firearms for any purpose.

No matter how we like it or not, it doesn't say rights are reserved for lawful, unlawful, etc. Just Citizens.

[sgt7546]

I'm sure the NRA will be sending out additional envelopes to fund this additional gleam of information in the OP.

[brewguy]

We all get hung up on the 2nd but the truth is the bill of rights only spelled out a few rights that are basic to all humans. That is the right to defend yourself. We all have that right and any law that impacts that goes against the law of nature. To give that up you give up what it means to be human, you are now just a servant.

[Sebastian]

Just remember that the NRA did not support this case from the beginning. They're late comers to this game. If you want to fight for your second amendment rights the choice is clear: Gun Owners of America.

A lot of people want to presume there were nefarious reasons for NRA not supporting Parker initially, but few consider the real reason, which was fear the case would lose at the Supreme Court. The recent changes in The Court's makeup make this a lot less likely now, but even with the changes, if you're not nervous the Supreme Court is going to screw us here, you should be.

NRA's response to the Administration's brief is weak, I'll grant you. If you read the brief, the Administration's Position argued that the second amendment is an individual right, but they are asking that the case be remanded in order that the trial court apply a different "heightened" standard of scrutiny, rather than the classification test the lower court used. The aim of this brief is to preserve the existing federal gun laws, and with an eye on preserving possible future bans on certain classes of firearms. I'm sure you can use your imaginations to figure out what they are talking about here.

Nonetheless, it's not a brief I would expect from a President who is in office because of the gun vote. Just for contrast, here's the brief filed by Janet Reno, et al. That's what we'd be dealing with under Clinton. Bush is still an improvement, but I don't see any reason to be happy that he decided to use lubrication, and was nice enough to give gun owners the reach around. I think it's not unreasonable to demand better from Bush.

[Kenshin]

I'm hoping for a win and someone to challenge the 1986 ban on new MG's so we can play with all the new toys that have been developed since then!