2 Challenge Gun Cases, Citing Bush Policy

[Ed Stone]

At 07:36 PM 5/31/02, you wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/politics/31GUNS.html
>
>WASHINGTON, May 30 Two men charged with carrying pistols without a license 
>in the District of Columbia have invoked the Bush administration's 
>position on guns to seek the dismissal of their cases.
>
>Reversing decades of Justice Department policy, the Bush administration 
>told the Supreme Court this month that it believes the Second Amendment 
>protects an individual's right to possess firearms.
>
>Lawyers for the two men, Michael Freeman and Manuel Brown, say the 
>position is inconsistent with a ruling in the United States Court of 
>Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
>
>Today, the Justice Department urged the continued prosecution of the men. 
>The controlling precedent upholds the city's firearm statutes, "even 
>though it contains reasoning that is inconsistent with the position of the 
>United States," the department said in court papers

Looks like it is the position of the Department of Justice of the United 
States of America that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution conveys 
rights, as against potential Government powers to the contrary, for an 
Individual not in the military to keep and bear arms, albeit subject to 
reasonable regulation thereof.

The Justice Department's urging of continued prosecution of the men looks 
like DOJ views a blanket proscription of an individual's possessing or 
bearing a firearm to be a reasonable regulation of firearms.

Assuming that the current position of the DOJ is that it believes the 
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, then 
if a municipality can prevail in requiring that only police officers may 
posses guns, and pass Constitutional muster, can that municipality prevail 
in requiring that only police officers may enjoy free speech? Or petition 
the Government for redress of grievances? Or refuse to testify against 
themselves? Why not?

Cases in which the United States Governmnent has found an individual's 
rights found in the United States Constitution essentially voidable by a 
city council are rare, I hope? Unusual? So pre-9/11?