More on the Solicitor General's brief
In the WashPo.
"If the justices accept that advice when they hear the case in the spring, it could mean additional years of litigation over the controversial Second Amendment and could undo a ruling that was a seminal victory for gun rights enthusiasts.
Some were livid. One conservative Web site said the administration had "blundered in catastrophic fashion," and another turned Clement, usually a pinup for conservative legal scholars, into a digital dartboard. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the Republicans' chief deputy whip, called the brief "just outrageous," and Republican presidential candidate and former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) accused the Justice Department of "overlawyering" the issue."
UPDATE: the Heritage Foundation weights in. A very good and objective piece. It is a good thing that the gov' t concedes there is an individual right, a proposition that has been hotly contested. But a bad thing that the gov't wants a limited standard of review. That the gov't concedes a right against itself is entitled to some deference. That it wants to limit that right is not; what else can we expect the Dep't of Justice to argue? We can thus hope that the Court considers the first significant, and the second "so what else is new?"
Hat tip to reader Ambiguous ambiguae...
ANOTHER update: here's, I think, a rational and balanced take on it. Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson.