Mrs. Brady,
This may come as a shock to you, but there are millions of firearms owners who also believe that the Parker case in Washington D.C. is "critical to the safety and sanity of our nation."
The difference, you see, is that the firearm owners are often students of history and history teaches us that "To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason Elliot, Debates at 425-426).
The militia is not the federally-supported National Guard, nor could it be. The founders distrusted a peace-time standing army as the sword of the tyrant. Gun owners realize ... "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." (Noah Webster's An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787). And I'll remind you that Webster was not one to misuse the English language!
In your electronic missive, you supported Judge Henderson's opinion that D.C.'s prohibitions were permissible because D.C. is not a state, which means that her interpretation is the Bill of Rights applies only to states. If we extend this logic, then we should not guarantee the right against unreasonable searches, freedom of worship or of free speech or a right to a trial by jury to the citizens of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico or Guam. After all, these are mere possessions of the U.S. and thus if the 2nd Amendment does not apply due to their lack of statehood, neither can the rest. Personally, I'd like to see you explaining your support of this position to the residents of those territories.
I won't even mention the possibility that "a free state" could also refer to any sovereign entity, be it a state, province or a nation. Or even a combination of them.
You also express outrage that the Appellate court "completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia". I will remind you that the will of the people is not absolute. We are a nation of laws under a constitution, not a mobocracy. It was the will of the people that made slavery legal and supported segregation. It was the will of the people, through local governments, that supported Jim Crow laws, zoning laws to keep blacks out of white areas and sometimes preventing Jews, Asians and Irish from holding certain jobs. All of these laws have been rightfully ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I hope you do not lament these changes?
Mrs. Brady, your claim of judicial activism is hypocrisy of the worst form. The Brady Campaign, et al, has long supported the use of the courts to force what it could not do by legislation. You've coerced city mayors to squander millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers when that money could have been used for citizens, not lawyers. These suits, in essence, are like trying to hold Ford and GM responsible for irresponsible drivers or Sears-Craftsman for criminals using their tools. Those tax dollars might have bought textbooks for children so they might grow up as productive adults instead of semi-literate criminals.
You berate Judge Silberman for relying on historical texts, judicial history and the work of constitutional scholars instead of finding a post-modern interpretation of the law. Perhaps Judge Silberman saw, like many of us, that there is not one single word in all of the constitutional debates, or in the personal letters, journals and diaries of the founders to support the "collective rights" theory. If this is judicial activism, I'd like to see more of it, not less.
