Attorney Generals file Individual Right brief in Parker v. DC appeal.

[F4GIB]

Led by Texas, thirteen state Attorney Generals (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, TX, UT & WY) have gone on record in supporting a meaningful individual right to keep and bear arms. The amicus brief was filed June 16, 2006 in Parker v. DC. (the Cato Institute lawyers' Second Amendment-based challenge to DC's gun ban, now on appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Disctrict of Columbia). See generally: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/levy-030219.html .

The Attorney Generals' position is that:

"The district court's holding that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms denies American citizens a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. *** [A]lthough the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is not an absolute right immune from any restrictions whatsoever, ... the D. C. Code provisions ... which essentially impose blanket prohibitions on handgun ownership and possession of functional long guns..., are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. As such, they are unconstitutional on their face."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It is encouraging to see them take on the DC gun ban, but this is bothersome:

[A]lthough the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is not an absolute right immune from any restrictions whatsoever,

The Constitution clearly states that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Once they sign on to the individual right, there is simply no intellectually honest way to read that as in any way allowing "restriction" or "reasonable regulation." Regulations and restrictions are, by definition, infringements.

I view this news as a mixed blessing.

 

[taliv]

got a link to something more recent? or is this a history lesson?

 

[SteveS]

Hawkmoon, I am not sure, but I think what they were suggesting is that the 2nd would be placed on the same plane as the 1st. Restrictions would have to follow the strict scrutiny standard that has been applied to laws touching on the 1st amendment.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any federal law that would pass that test.

 

[dracphelan]

Well, the Texas Attorney General (Greg Abbot) has just assured my vote for him come November.

 

[Rumble]

From what I could find online in a super-quick Google search:

In March 2004, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled in favor of the District of Columbia in the Parker v. DC case.

The CATO Institute then appealed, but the appeal was stayed pending the outcome of Seegars v. Ashcroft. After that case was resolved, a motion to remand was made by the DC counsel in July of 2005 asking that the Parker v. DC ruling be upheld. However, the appeals court denied the motion to remand in Nov. 2005, and requested further briefing.

All this came from http://www.gunlawsuits.org/docket/casestatus.php?RecordNo=87. Yes, I realize it's linked to the Brady Center. I washed my hands after entering the URL.

EDIT: Also, I should read more carefully, as the OP is talking about a very recent amicus brief, and not old stuff. So, uh...consider the stuff above history.

 

[LoneStranger]

Try going to http://www.gurapossessky.com since they seem to be the attorneys of record on this.

 

[ksnecktieman]

WOW, a lawyers website that condenses four years of litigation onto one page, and it seemed to make the facts clear.
I like this, it may be the right time and place to get a ruling on the second ammendment. What a terrible shame that we have been waiting all these years to get a translation of a 27 word law that a ten year old should be able to read and understand.

 

[Roadwild17]

+1 ksnecktieman