Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Summary of Heller | Main | Tent-pegging »

Thought on Solicitor General's position

Posted by David Hardy · 3 March 2008 09:38 AM

From Pres. Bush's 2004 Platform:

"Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution's Second Amendment."
.......
"We believe the 2nd Amendment and all the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense...We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding gun owners & national gun registration as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens."

The SG's position may be consistent with the first sentence, but it's hard to see how it's consistent with the remainder. The core issue in Heller is ... owning firearms in the home for self-defense. If even a handgun ban is a difficult issue under the SG's legal position (hence requiring remand for gathering evidence), it's hard to see why licensing and registration would qualify as clear 2nd Amendment violations, as the Platform states.

In short, when it really comes down to the wire, the Administration turns its back on the Platform with which it won election.
.....

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Flash Gordon | March 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply

It appears to be the personalities of both Bushes, father and son, that whatever one has said or promised in the past is no longer operative. W's position on the 2nd Amendment is just one of many abandonments of past pronouncements. Others inlcude, free trade, campaign finance, Supreme Court appointments, the Bush doctrine on terrorism and states that give aid and comfort to terrorists, the prerequisites to be met before support for a Palestinian state, etc. etc. And not forgetting, of course, Bush 41's "no new taxes" pledge. With the Bushes it's always, "that was then and this is now."

Don Hamrick | March 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply

By implication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Questionaire it can be implied that the Heller case has the attention of the IACHR.

IACHR CONSULTS WITH STATES AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
A QUESTIONNAIRE ON CITIZEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.cidh.org/Seguridad_Ciudadana_Consulta.eng.htm

Chris | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply

On one side are gun rights advocates who argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to “keep and bear arms.” On the other side are gun control advocates, who believe that the Second Amendment only gives individuals associated with a militia this right.

I wasn't aware that we were arguing that the BOR gives us rights.

Matt Carmel | March 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply

If the 2004 Republican platform conflicts with the SG Heller brief, then why can't Bush be personally sued for breach of promise, false advertising or another action based upon any number of legal theories?

Mike O'Shea | March 3, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply

David correctly identifies the point where the SG's brief shifts from being merely a missed opportunity to a slap in the face: the call for a remand.

First, it reveals that the executive branch is unwilling even to concede that a total ban on handguns would violate the Second Amendment. It would have been easy to write a brief that said: "The D.C. Circuit applied too strict a standard of scrutiny, so this Court should correct that error in its opinion. However, D.C.'s laws flunk even intermediate scrutiny, so the judgment below should still be affirmed." They deliberately did not do so. Gun rights proponents might not have been overjoyed by such a brief, but it wouldn't have been a big surprise, and certainly wouldn't have caused the uproar that the actual brief did.

Second, it took 70 years to get the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a case likely to yield a square holding on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's profoundly disappointing to see the SG ask for that case not to be resolved on the merits, but instead bounced back to the lower courts for more litigation.

Bulgarian Solicitor | March 13, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply

The Solicitor General has authority to represent the United States before the Supreme Court in cases "in which the United States is interested."1 He also has broad power to supervise litigation conducted in the lower courts by lawyers representing the United States, its agencies, and its officials.2 The Solicitor General is often -- and correctly -- said to have special responsibilities to the Supreme Court, responsibilities different in kind from those of lawyers representing private clients. But the interesting and difficult questions about the Solicitor General's role do not directly concern his responsibilities to the Supreme Court ("his" because no woman has yet been appointed Solicitor General -- a situation that will surely change soon). Rather, the difficult questions have to do with the Solicitor General's responsibilities as a member of the Executive Branch. To what extent is he, like most other high-ranking executive branch officials, properly concerned with carrying out the policies of the Administration in which he serves? Or should he, instead, remain aloof from Administration policies and concern himself only with the institutional interests of the federal government? And if the latter, how does one define the institutional interests of the federal government?

Leave a comment