The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

(Page 2 of 2)

When it comes to the distinction between bans and other regulations, well, the administration has a hard time keeping that one straight. It specifically notes that the appeals-court interpretation "both secures individual rights and allows 'reasonable restrictions,'" but editorializes, "the Second Amendment's protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid" as though that runs counter to the decision. The brief also spends an entire page defending prohibitions on felons owning guns, even though neither side disputes the validity of said prohibitions.

The administration proposes that courts "should consider (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff's ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (including the nature and practical adequacy of the available lawful alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government's interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction." It takes no position as to whether the DC laws would pass such a test.

In other words, the courts should decide whether, in a given circumstance, a given policy is good enough to warrant a given degree of infringement on gun rights. They shouldn't decide that the words "shall not be infringed" prohibit certain policies in all circumstances. This is squishy jurisprudence at best.

topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court