Public ‘Threatened’ By Private-Firearms Ownership
Since “unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.
The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.
“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment,” he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.
He noted especially the federal ban on machine guns and those many other “particularly dangerous types of firearms,” and endorsed restrictions on gun ownership by felons, those subject to restraining orders, drug users and “mental defectives.”
His arguments came in the closely watched Washington, D.C., ban that would prevent residents from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.
Paul Helmke, of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he salutes the administration for its position.
But Alan Gura, who is heading up the challenge to the handgun ban, told the newspaper he was troubled Clement suggested more hearings on the case.
“We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights,” he told the paper. “This is definitely hostile to our position.”
Because of the specifics of the D.C. case, the ultimate ruling is expected to address directly whether the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have a gun, or whether local governments can approve whatever laws or ordinances they desire to restrict firearms.
The amendment reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Clement is the Bush administration’s chief lawyer before the court, and submitted the arguments in the case that is to determine whether the D.C. limit is constitutional. He said the 2nd Amendment, “protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations,” and noted the D.C. ban probably goes too far.
But the newspaper said most of Clement’s new brief urges the Supreme Court to decided most current restrictions on guns and gun owners cannot be overturned by citing the 2nd Amendment.
He said the failing in the D.C. law is that it totally bans handguns in the homes of private citizens. But he urged the court to recognize, “Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood … calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”
(WND)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
This is supposed to be a conservative Presidency.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:16 amThis dipshit has been studying case law for too long. Doesn’t anyone read the Founding Fathers or the Bill Of Rights anymore…Federalist Papers ????? There is NO room in the second Amendment for taking limiting gun ownership.
It is a right that is not given by the state…to Americans…according to the constitution our rights come from God…not the state.
So this PC twit should just STFU and go read the Founders, the Bill Of Rights before making his stupid pronouncements again.
Oh yeah, he should probably switch parties…
January 14th, 2008 at 8:25 amLooks like its time to stock up while we still can.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:42 amSwear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still
- Mike and the Mechanics
…..
Interesting that yesterday I was discussing with my 6th grade son the need for the 2nd amendment and the need for oppressive governments to be overthrown. I am not interested in leaving the fight up to him.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:15 amThis is where freedom begins and ends. The 2nd amendment right has been taken out of context for so long you would think that it was written in the 20th century.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:32 amI strongly suggest every U.S. citizen read the Federalist Papers. The following is just a small sample.
JOHN ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress delegate, 1st Vice President, 2nd President):
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…” 1788
SAM ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, organized the Sons of Liberty, participated in Boston Tea Party, Member of Continental Congress, Governor of Massachusetts): “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named “Father of the Constitution”, author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President): “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms….”
If you wish to fight gun controlling laws I suggest you consider joining GOA or gun owners of america @:
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm
They are what the NRA never could do. They are big and powerful. It takes a minutes to join on line. Once one line you can easily access what federal cases or your local state cases are being held. Once you find out what is going that may effect you, you can e-mail a pre-drafted letter to your state representative from the website advising how you want your representative to vote.
I both joined and sent a number of letters to representatives all in under 5 minutes.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:49 amI call this, ‘Bullshit’. The Beltway has really started to chip away at the Bush Administration. Something about that town erodes conviction in ALL politicians.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:55 amAmen Dan,
It’s something everyone forgets these days: our rights weren’t granted by the bill of rights. They were RECOGNIZED as being fundamental and delegated by a higher power than the federal government. But the public school system I (and many millions each year) is awash with idiots who told us that the founding fathers “gave us” our rights like it was some sort of privilege.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:29 amForget the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, Mr. Clement is stupid enough to state incorrectly that ownership of machine guns is prohibited; when in fact you can own an M2 .50 cal. machine gun or any other type of machine gun with the proper ATF licenses.
I am tired of seeing any of these cases argued before the SC, if for no other reason than the arguments to limit my ownership of firearms as a law abiding citizen are all wrong.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pmI have the right to abortion on demand as a Constitutional right given to me by the SC, but I do not have the right to own a handgun in Chicago that was granted to me by the Constitution of the United States of America. WTF!!!!!
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”— - George Washington
January 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pmThe argument in the case is….
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Whether “the People” are actually “We the people” or if “the People” are the National Guard, active military and law enforcement.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:06 pmMost ppl don’t realize that, in the minds of the Founders, EVERY able bodied man between 16-65 are members of their respective states’ militia.
If the S-C finds for Wash DC, in that “the people” are military and law enforcement, “We the people” will have been completely stripped of our Bill of Rights.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? Of course thats a rhetorical question, this has nothing to do with understanding but idealogical beliefs. There is a growing fifth column in this country and it runs very deep in DC. These are the same people who want to reshape America into nothing short of a socialist utopia.
Although I support the Bush administration on many things they are not conservatives. But one of real successes of the administration is appointing two solid constructionist judges who beleive in the fidelity of the constitution.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pmI just realized I haven’t read the Federalist Papers since high school (on my own, most teachers probably never heard of them).
Think I’ll pay a visit to the bookstore. Every American, hell everyone on the planet, should read them. Instead, half the world gets Marx, and the other half Mo, and we few are stuck trying to fix the goatfuck the planet’s becoming.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am