DC Gun Ban Fiasco

[Rick Lee]

Who the hell is in charge here? If any of you fellow gun nuts read Clement's brief on this, you were rightly outraged by the Bush admin. being so wobbly on this issue, if not downright hostile to it. And you were probably surprised to see Cheney come out in opposition to the administration's brief. Now it turns out Bush didn't have anything to do with it, but very much should have put a stop to the infighting over at Justice. How in the world did this one slip through? Bush should take the short limo ride over to Justice and personally fire any bureacrat whose fingerprints were on this. Meanwhile, Mukasey is about to personally argue a SCOTUS case on mandatory minimums. But the bureaucrats were able to take charge of this issue? Kidding me?

Gun Battle at the White House?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 13, 2008; A17

In preparation for oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration's stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President Bush.

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court's affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency.

Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights, which enjoy much wider agreement than do opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Promises in two presidential campaigns are being abandoned, and Bush finds himself to the left of even Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The 1976 D.C. statute prohibiting ownership of all functional firearms was called unconstitutional a year ago in an opinion by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for 22 years. It was assumed that Bush would fight Mayor Adrian Fenty's appeal.

The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement.

But facing congressional Democratic pressure to keep his hands off the Justice Department, Bush did not act.

Cheney did join 55 senators and 250 House members in signing a brief supporting the Silberman ruling. Although this unprecedented vice presidential intervention was widely interpreted as a dramatic breakaway from the White House, longtime associates could not believe that Cheney would defy the president. In fact, he did not. Bush approved what Cheney did in his constitutional role as president of the Senate.

That has not lessened puzzlement over Clement, a 41-year-old conservative Washington lawyer who clerked for Silberman and later for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Clement has tried to explain his course to the White House by claiming that he feared Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's current swing vote, would join a liberal majority on gun rights if forced to rule on Silberman's opinion.

The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in.

A majority of both houses in the Democratic-controlled Congress are on record as being against the District's gun prohibition. So are 31 states, with only five (New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii) in support. Sen. Barack Obama has weighed in against the D.C. law, asserting that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms -- not just collective authority to form militias.

This popular support for gun rights is not reflected by an advantage in the oral arguments to take place Tuesday. Former solicitor general Walter Dellinger, an old hand at arguing before the Supreme Court, will make the case for the gun prohibition. Opposing counsel Alan Gura, making his first appearance before the high court, does not have the confidence of gun-ownership advocates (who tried to replace him with former solicitor general Ted Olson).

The cause needs help from Clement during his 15-minute oral argument, but it won't get it if he reiterates his written brief. The word was passed in government circles this week that Clement would amend his position when he actually faces the justices -- which would be an odd ending to bizarre behavior by the Justice Department.

[onewhippedpuppy]

How much more clear can "the right to bear arms" be?

[Rick Lee]

Oh, and are you ready for this? I may have to agree with the ACLU on this one. DC Police will soon start going door to door and asking homeowners to consent to a search of their house for guns and/or drugs, offering them amnesty for anything found IF they give consent. Seems some parents are so scared of laying down the law with their kids, that they have to invite the popo into their house to search their kids' rooms. And what do you think might happen if a homeowner like me laughs in the police's face and says, "Shirley, you can't be serious. Go get a warrant and come back and seen me with my lawyer. And f&ck you very much." Gawd, I wouldn't live here if I were president. I'd live in VA and commute to the White House.

[jyl]

Big screwup by the Administration.

[Jim Richards]

Justice Dept's disfunctionality is pretty much typical of all the Dept's under the Bush Administration. A total lack of effective leadership for 7 1/2 years. Anyway, I was really hoping that the DC handgun ban would finally be crushed by the SCOTUS, but I'm no longer optimistic. Oh well.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Justice Dept's disfunctionality is pretty much typical of all the Dept's under the Bush Administration. A total lack of effective leadership for 7 1/2 years. Anyway, I was really hoping that the DC handgun ban would finally be crushed by the SCOTUS, but I'm no longer optimistic. Oh well.

Yea right, everything wrong in the world is Bush's fault.

DC was a slice of heaven before Bush came in office, no crime, no mayor snorting coke on duty, no murders... just a small slice of heaven!

Can we get some of what you are smoking?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by jyl

Big screwup by the Administration.

Again?

(yawn)

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

Yea Can we get some of what you are smoking?

Sure, it's called reality. Come here and see it in person. It's breathtaking.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Sure, it's called reality. Come here and see it in person. It's breathtaking.

I have and thats why I live out West. The difference is that I am not blaming all the problems of the world (and DC) on one person and their admin like you are. DC was a hole with rats thrown in it years ago and its done nothing but get worse, thanks to managers like Mayor Berry and his cronies, not Pres. Bush or even Clinton before him.

[onewhippedpuppy]

You gotta admit, a crackhead mayor probably didn't help things.

[Jim Richards]

I'm not talking about the District of Columbia government, Joe. I'm talking about the federal departments that are run by Bush political appointees. For the most part, his appointees have been ineffective and/or incompetent. Patronage at its worst. You may disagree, but I would hope you could provide examples of highly competent political appointees running the major government agencies. I think the list is pretty short.

Back on topic, I sure hope the confusion at Justice doesn't fuch up crushing the DC handgun ban. I'm tired of living vicariously throuhg some of you guys that have them.

[Rick Lee]

I think we can all agree that Bush dropped the ball on this one and I think a lot of it has to do with the rocky transition from Gonzalez to Mukasey at DOJ. But this is not a problem unique to Bush. Every administration has their class of political appointees and there's nothing wrong with that. Those people are there to implement the president's agenda with the federal agencies, which are often full of very entrenched career bureaucrats who think nothing of stalling until the next guy comes into office. I think this is especially apparent at the State Dept. and Rice has been a total failure in reforming its bureacracy. If anything, I think Bush kept more holdovers than any other president. Norm Mineta, George Tenet (Clinton appointees) are two that come immediately to mind, but there have been far more. And speaking of DOJ dropping the ball when it comes to gun cases, anyone remember Janet (Johnny) Reno's argument on the "gun-free" school zones issue? Yes, of course - it was a Commerce Clause exlcusion.

[tabs]

Marion Berry won relection to being Mayor of DC on the assertion that he only smoked Crack and wasn't a Heroin addict like his opponent.

[Rick Lee]

I think I will have to start another thread to even scratch the surface of the Marion Barry saga. He's had more run-ins with the law than Rodney King after his beating and gets off every time for it.

[tabs]

Does anyone wana bet that the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Apelate courts decison and in fact goes farther than the Justice Departments brief in upholding the right to bear arms.

[Jim Richards]

No, I'll hang onto my money.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by tabs

Does anyone wana bet that the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Apelate courts decison and in fact goes farther than the Justice Departments brief in upholding the right to bear arms.

Only if Anthony Kennedy recuses himself.

I'm no lawyer and I know the SCOTUS sometimes makes up its own laws. But are they technically allowed to go beyond the scope of the case before them? I know they can say "no". But can they say "hell no"?

My guess is SCOTUS will uphold the circuit court's ruling that the gun ban is unconstitutional, but will give DC enough wiggle room to make restrictions similar to those of NYC or Chicago. In effect, nothing will change.

[legion]

Originally Posted by tabs

Does anyone wana bet that the Supreme Court doesn't uphold the Apelate courts decison and in fact goes farther than the Justice Departments brief in upholding the right to bear arms.

No, I won't take that bet.

In recent history, the SCOTUS tries to make their decisions as narrow as possible. I expect the same here.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

You gotta admit, a crackhead mayor probably didn't help things.

You should try dealing with their tax dept.

Hoy!



Rick what's the deal on going door to door?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by berettafan

You should try dealing with their tax dept.

Hoy!



Rick what's the deal on going door to door?

Why bother? Marion Barry didn't file fed. income taxes for something like six years, admitted it and still walked free. I doubt the District would be any tougher on him for it.

Read yesterday's or today's Post on the door to door thing. It was all over the radio today too. I think it's only in bad neighborhoods though. Today a guy was shot dead in front of an elementary school in DC. Gun free zone and all.