P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=10481
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.
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.