The United States Justic Department recently filed a brief in the DC Gun Case that is to be heard by the Supreme Court in March, 2008. While the brief acknowledges that the Second Amendment is an individual right, it also claims that, "the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment's protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood -- and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case -- calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

Groups like the Liberty Belles, Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the National Rifle Association, Keep and Bear Arms, Pink Pistols, and many, many others did not spring into existence to protect the rights of convicted felons. We exist to preserve the rights of law abiding citizens. Citizens who are increasingly forced to accept limits, restrictions, taxes, and various bans on our ability to keep and bear arms. These anti-gun laws have been justified by anti-gun government officials who repeatedly claim that the Second Amendment is NOT an individual right and therefore they can place all the restrictions that they want.

The whole purpose of the DC Gun Case is for the Supreme Court to acknowledge what we already know: That the Second Amendment IS an individual right that shall not be infringed.

The Justice Department is disingenous in its attempt to defend all anti-gun laws by using one or two extreme examples of existing gun laws. It defends its position by claiming that the Second Amendment is subject to certain "reasonable restrictions." Who gets to decide what's reasonable? Ted Nugent or Dianne Feinstein?

Who banned handgun ownership without first obtaining a license and then refused to issue additional licenses creating a de facto gun ban? The government. Who banned semi-automatic rifles possessing certain cosmetic features for a period of ten years? The government. Who created gun laws so strict as to be virtually banned in the cities of Chicago and New York? The government. Get the picture?

And while the Justice Department's brief specifically refers to federal laws, the Bill of Rights is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any law that attempts to override the Bill of Rights is automatically null and void. Somehow the government fails to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land, but seems to have no problem enforcing laws that attempt to override the Bill of Rights.

In sum, the Justice Department wants business as usual. They want the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on D.C. as an isolated case so they can maintain all the thousands of anti-gun laws that are currently on the books and continue to write more laws. The government, generally speaking, is anti-gun. If we look to the government, we can expect nothing but to be further disenfranchised.

We're not asking for permission to own guns. We're asking that the government accept and recognize our pre-existing birth right, endowed by our Creator, so that we may exercise our rights freely without fear of government retribution.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org