Bush administration backs gun regulation

[nhboy]

"WASHINGTON -- In their legal battle over gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, gun- control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.

But that's just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld.

Reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," he said in the brief. Moreover, the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders, he said.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," Clement said. He filed the brief in a closely watched case involving Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns at home for self-defense.




Sign Up

 

[ImnoMensa]

Not too many reasonable people can argue that some gun restrictions need to be in place.

However the Washington DC law whcih severely restricts the purchase and ownership of handguns in private homes is a boatload of crap and a violation of the Constitution.

That is what the Supreme Court should be ruling on .

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Not too many reasonable people can argue that some gun restrictions need to be in place.

However the Washington DC law whcih severely restricts the purchase and ownership of handguns in private homes is a boatload of crap and a violation of the Constitution.

That is what the Supreme Court should be ruling on .

The 2nd Amendment will be changed. I don't trust the Supreme Court, they are a branch of government. The Government no longer is looking out for us, instead they're looking out for themselves.

Supreme Court's violated the Constitution before and changed what constitutional rights we have, they'll do it again.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I dont disagree with you. The case before the Supreme Court is about Washington DC's overly restrictive law against handguns. One of the problems is that everyone wants to get into the act, and the decision could affect guns everywhere. Hopefully the Supreme court will judge wisely keep the federal laws now in affect and force Dc to change their law. Unfortunately they could vote to enforce the DC law and if that happens ,expect the anti-gun forces to come out in droves ,all hoping to ban guns everywhere.