R
Roger Denney
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gun_control_d.c./2008/01/13/64033.html
Bush Administration Backs Gun-Control Laws
Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:16 PM
A District of Columbia gun-control law struck down by a federal court
has won surprise support from the Bush administration.
On Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme
Court to rule that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not
absolute and is limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the
government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be
upheld, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In his brief, Clement stated that such reasonable regulations include
the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous
types of firearms," and that the government forbids gun possession by
felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to
restraining orders.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted
private firearm possession would entail, various categories of
firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,"
Clement said in his filing concerning the District's ban on keeping
handguns at home for self-defense, which a federal court has ruled
violates the Second Amendment.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun
Violence, told the Times he saluted the administration for recognizing
a need for limits on gun rights. Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate
leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, said he
was disappointed over the administration's position, adding that he
was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back
for further hearings in a lower court.
"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is
hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our
position," Gura said.
The Times noted that later this year the Supreme Court is expected to
"rule squarely on whether the Second Amendment gives individuals a
right to have a gun despite laws or ordinances restricting firearms."
That amendment provides that "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." Pro-gun-control groups
insist that that the law applies to militias, such as the national
guard, and not individuals.
In the case now before the court, the constitutionality of the
District of Columbia's ordinance is at issue. Clement in his brief
agreed that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to
possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia
operations," and contends that D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and
is probably unconstitutional.
He cautioned, however, that the court should move cautiously and make
clear that the Second Amendment does not threaten most current
restrictions on guns and gun owners, and said the court should stop
short of striking down the D.C. ordinance on its own, and that the
case should be sent back to a trial judge, the Times reported.
"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny," he said, because
it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home.
Such a ruling however, should not threaten other laws, he said.
"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood . . . calls for
invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
The court will hear arguments in the D.C. case in late March.
In another development, President Bush signed the nation's first new
gun-control legislation in 14 years on Saturday to help keep guns out
of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill. The law appropriates
$250 million a year for states and their courts to computerize their
records on mentally ill people and forward the information to to the
FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System to prevent anyone who is seriously mentally ill, a criminal or
who has a restraining order against them for domestic violence from
buying a gun.
Bush Administration Backs Gun-Control Laws
Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:16 PM
A District of Columbia gun-control law struck down by a federal court
has won surprise support from the Bush administration.
On Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme
Court to rule that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not
absolute and is limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the
government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be
upheld, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In his brief, Clement stated that such reasonable regulations include
the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous
types of firearms," and that the government forbids gun possession by
felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to
restraining orders.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted
private firearm possession would entail, various categories of
firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,"
Clement said in his filing concerning the District's ban on keeping
handguns at home for self-defense, which a federal court has ruled
violates the Second Amendment.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun
Violence, told the Times he saluted the administration for recognizing
a need for limits on gun rights. Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate
leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, said he
was disappointed over the administration's position, adding that he
was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back
for further hearings in a lower court.
"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is
hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our
position," Gura said.
The Times noted that later this year the Supreme Court is expected to
"rule squarely on whether the Second Amendment gives individuals a
right to have a gun despite laws or ordinances restricting firearms."
That amendment provides that "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." Pro-gun-control groups
insist that that the law applies to militias, such as the national
guard, and not individuals.
In the case now before the court, the constitutionality of the
District of Columbia's ordinance is at issue. Clement in his brief
agreed that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to
possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia
operations," and contends that D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and
is probably unconstitutional.
He cautioned, however, that the court should move cautiously and make
clear that the Second Amendment does not threaten most current
restrictions on guns and gun owners, and said the court should stop
short of striking down the D.C. ordinance on its own, and that the
case should be sent back to a trial judge, the Times reported.
"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny," he said, because
it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home.
Such a ruling however, should not threaten other laws, he said.
"Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood . . . calls for
invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
The court will hear arguments in the D.C. case in late March.
In another development, President Bush signed the nation's first new
gun-control legislation in 14 years on Saturday to help keep guns out
of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill. The law appropriates
$250 million a year for states and their courts to computerize their
records on mentally ill people and forward the information to to the
FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System to prevent anyone who is seriously mentally ill, a criminal or
who has a restraining order against them for domestic violence from
buying a gun.
