Speech #1100139642

I would support it without hesitation. However. it does not stop there. Page 30 of the amicus brief includes declarations that "the Districts handgun ban is unreasonable on its face" and further. that "The lower courts categorical approach in holding a prohibition on handguns to be unconstitutional per se was correct." Those assertions directly contradict statements in the Solicitor Generals brief warning that while the Second Amendment does protect an individual right. the lower courts categorical approach to reviewing the D.C. laws in question "could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation" including restrictions on possession of firearms by convicted criminals. fugitives from justice. illegal immigrants. and people suffering from mental disorders. Some may ask why the many Members of Congress who signed the first brief did not similarly hesitate to so flatly contradict the arguments of the Solicitor General. It is possible that my colleagues read the brief as only trying to make clear that the lower court rightly ruled about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment and rightly rejected the absurd argument advanced by the District of Columbia that if any individual right attached to the Second Amendment it should only apply to weapons (not handguns) known at the time the founders drafted the Constitution.