Our Supreme Court received a new amici curiae brief in opposition to the DC handgun ban from 250 members of the House, 55 senators along VP Dick Cheney. My esteemed firearms legal expert believes the Supreme Court will pay attention to a co-equal branch of government.
Here is what the NRA released yesterday about its own amicus brief. The last paragraph predicted the Congressional brief that was filed today.
NRA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court, D.C. v. Heller ()Thursday, February 07, 2008
Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund today submitted an amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia (D.C.) and Mayor Adrian Fenty v. Dick Anthony Heller. This brief supports a lower federal appeals court decision holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and asserts that the D.C. bans on handguns, on carrying firearms within the home and on possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.
“We want to return hope and we want to return freedom to our nation’s capital. After this ban was enacted, D.C.’s murder rate tripled, and the city was labeled ‘murder capital of the United States’,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The irony of this gun ban is that it has resulted in criminals having guns while denying law-abiding citizens their basic right to self defense in their own homes.”
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.” The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because D.C. is not a state. This case marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.
“It is beyond unreasonable to prevent law-abiding residents from using a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones in their own homes, and that is clearly not what our founding fathers intended in crafting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” added Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The American people - whether democrat or republican, urban or rural - know that the Second Amendment was not written to give a right to the government, but rather to guarantee the fundamental right of individual citizens.”
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), along with bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history - will also be filing a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. Several other pro-Second Amendment individuals and organizations, including an overwhelming majority of state attorneys general, will be filing briefs in favor of affirming the D.C. Circuit’s decision as well.
The NRA is widely recognized as America’s foremost defender of Americans’ civil rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as well as being the nation’s leading provider of firearms safety and marksmanship training. The NRA has a vital interest in this case, as the District of Columbia’s arguments, if accepted, would abrogate the fundamental right to keep and bear arms enjoyed by the NRA’s members and other Americans.
As stated in the NRA brief:
“In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes, not a collective right to keep and bear arms only in connection with state militia service.”
By its terms, the Amendment protects the right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms. The holder of the right is unambiguous: it is not the States, it is ‘the people’ themselves.”
“Americans’ personal right to possess . . . firearms for hunting or self-defense was part of the essence of the Framers’ view of themselves as a free and democratic people. Had Americans in 1787 been told that the federal government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine that the Constitution would have been ratified.”
No comments:
Post a Comment