What the…this is disturbing

On Friday, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute and is limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld, according to the Los Angeles Times.

This went to the Supreme Court! The court is getting ready to hear arguments for and against a Washington D.C. ban on firearms. Clement continues:

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” Clement said in his filing concerning the District’s ban on keeping handguns at home for self-defense, which a federal court has ruled violates the Second Amendment.

This isn’t about unrestricted private firearms. This isn’t about giving guns to felons, or to mental cases. This is about law abiding citizens being able to own a gun for self-defense. This whole letter sends up red flags. What is going on here?

The Brady Campaign is ecstatic with this letter. That alone should give any American pause.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, told the Times he saluted the administration for recognizing a need for limits on gun rights.

Let’s look at that again: recognizing a need for limits on gun rights. What if it said: recognizing a need for limits on gun free speech rights? Or, what if it said: recognizing a need for limits on gun rights religion?

Hopefully the Roberts Court will rule in favor of liberty and the Constitution.