LA Times on Parker & Dept of Justice Brief

Generally...I think most of us were taken back by the sheer number of briefs (20) and the amount of material contained in them (collectively, 1021 pages). It is a lot of material for any one person to read critically, let alone interpret rationally and to place in context.

That said, what I am doing now is compiling the "Summary of Arguments" for all the briefs, and summarizing them, so I can get a broad view of what's going on here with the amici...to see if some patterns emerge. At first glance, it seems clear that the amici for DC collectively bring up any and all ramifications imaginable. Some appear to be reasonable and legitimate, others appear to be based on the same faulty arguments as the DC brief on the merits.

Regarding the DoJ brief, there has been a great deal of negative over-reaction to this (from our side, and in my mind). First, they take a clear view that the 2A, consistent with other bill of rights amendments, protects the rights of individuals. Further, the prefatory clause does not constrain the operative clause. HOWEVER, thier notion to remand down the court is not unsubstantiated or even surprising. The fact is that there is very little case law regarding the 2A, particularly little from the SCOTUS. Miller shall be helpful, but not much. Both sides argue veheemently that Miller supports their own arguments. Miller says that the 2A must be interpreted in light of the militia purpose; likewise, it states that individuals have a right to possess militia-appropriate weapons. These are big issues, people, and complicated. It is too much to hope that one ruling by the SCOTUS (the upcoming Heller ruling) will settle these matters. That said, I disagree with the DoJ in their argument that "all current federal gun control law is legitimate, and we can not [afford to] have a SCOTUS ruling that can be used to call those federal laws into question." In my mind, IF the constitutionality of those laws are indeed in question...then of course so too is the legitimacy of those laws. The DoJ doesn't seem to acknowledge that, and that is not good at all.

In all, these briefs and the groups who filed them make it crystal clear that the stakes are extremely high....higher than ever before. The case and the issues surrounding it has the potential of shaking the nation and the policies of it's government (and policies of states and local governments) to their very core. In part, what the DoJ is saying is that "we should make damned sure we've thought this through, before shaking the very nation to it's core." And in some ways, I agree with that. I do not necessarily think that remandation would be bad....though I would prefer a strong ruling from SCOTUS so that we can get the show on the road (correcting long-standing unconstitutional law and policy decisions....even in light of the American Bar Assosiation's argument of stare decicis...which effectively argues that established law should remain established law as a matter of course [and my reading between THEIR lines - EVEN IF such law is unconstitituional]).

This is the big one, people.

The Bush Admin's position in this case is all about, and only about, the NFA and the Section 922(o) ban on newly manufactured transferable machine guns.

Actually there is a possibility it could be about bans on "non-sporting" weapons.

I view the mg ban as a very low impact thing if it goes away. If anything, it would increase ATF revenue. That 200 dollar tax is their bread and butter. Silencers are currently a non-issue despite the fact that people are making thousands of them every year. I don't see why MGs would be any different. Most of the current cool factor comes from their illegality. Everyone actually comes out ahead if the MG ban goes away- manufacturers get more business, ATF gets more business, gun owners get new toys. It would actually be a good thing.

The non-sporting language is protecting a much larger herd of oxen from a proverbial goring. Remember that the 1968 GCA was partly a measure designed to protect domestic gun manufacturers from imported competition. If "sporting purposes" becomes an unconstitutional restriction, look at what changes-
1) all the norinco stuff can come in the country again. Decent quality 300 dollar M1As, 100 dollar shotguns, 100 dollar 1911s, 250-300 dollar high quality chinese AKs, etc, etc. That would put a huge hurt on domestic arms manufacturers.
2) Let's also not forget the enormous amount of milsurp stuff that would not longer be barred from entry.
3) Many cheap pistols could be imported again, and not just expensive full-size HKs and Sigs. We are talking little walther TPH type pistols again. It isn't widely known but many of the nicer pistols have been banned from importation since the 60s/70s on very arbitrary criteria that determines whether they are "sporting"- it was really just criteria to ban nearly everything from importation but some high end manufacturers worked around the ban.
4) Killing 922(r) would kill the domestic receiver industry- you know, those guys that make AK receivers to put imported parts kits into. Those guys are all out of jobs too. If you can import full auto AKs or even just semiauto AKs made in russian or bulgarian military factories, why would you want to pay more money for a crappy quality century arms receiver?

That doesn't touch much on the sporting shotgun problem, but I predict that is also unlikely to have much impact if it goes away. ATF/treasury only banned two shotguns under that rule (thanks lloyd bentsen, hope you're enjoying your lava bath in hell) in 40 years, so I predict the overall impact will be minimal. Most of the shotguns that would be bannable under this rule are already banned under the MG ban (Pancor Jackhammer, AA-12, etc). If they all become legal again, it isn't likely to have an earth shattering impact on anyone outside of a small niche of enthusiasts. I'm personally surprised that "sporting purposes" wasn't struck down for vagueness like 40 years ago, but there are lots of things that surprise me in the federal code.