D.C. Lawyers’ “Creative” Thinking
As time for the Supreme Court to hear Heller vs. D.C. approaches, the lawyers for the District are being ‘creative’ in their assumptions. In a brief filed by the district, they argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms only in the context of an organized militia. [Yawn - same old crap.]
In the brief, the district makes an additional argument: That the founding fathers’ concern in drafting the Second Amendment was to protect states from an overbearing federal government that might restrict access to firearms as a means of crippling state militias. As such, the Second Amendment only restricts Congress, they argue. [That’s the ‘creative’ part.]
If the second amendment, one of the ten original “Bill of Rights” amendments, need not be enforced at the lower tiers of government (D.C. and the states), then none of the others need to be enforced - things like freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy, etc. These, according to D.C. lawyers, should only apply to the United States Congress when it makes laws.
This is completely absurd. Alan Gura, the lawyer representing Heller, called the district’s argument “very creative but wrong.” The fundamental flaw, he said, is that the district is a creation of Congress and the federal government, so the D.C. Council would be subject to the same restrictions as Congress in passing gun-control laws.
And, of course, D.C. announced that former Clinton Administration acting Solicitor Walter E. Dellinger will become its lead lawyer on the landmark gun rights case before the Supreme Court. Not surprising at all that one of the Clinton Clan is getting involved. Bill Clinton was the worst President, when it came to personal firearms freedoms.
