Did President Bush's Solicitor General 'Overlawyer', or simply stated, did Bush manage to Stab Supporters in the Back?

I'd heard that Bush's lawyers had submitted a brief in the D.C. vs. Heller case (Gun Rights for beleaguered D.C. residents) that countered the efforts of 2nd Amendment supporters (that's ME, for one). I found the thing tonight (h/t Ace).

We really, really want the Supreme Court to take up this case, and sooner than later. From my reading of this brief, Bush's lawyers want to remand the case out of the Supreme Court, so as not to upset the existing applecart of gun laws. From the brief...a quick summary of Heller's winning argument against Washington D.C....

"Respondent alleged that he “presently intends to
possess a functional handgun and long gun for self-defense
within his own home, but is prevented from doing
so only by [petitioners’] active enforcement of unconstitutional
policies.” J.A. 51a. Respondent further alleged
that the D.C. firearm provisions discussed above effectively
prohibit “the private ownership and possession of
handguns and functional firearms within the home” and
therefore violate his rights under the Second Amendment.
J.A. 57a. “At a minimum,” he contended, “the
Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental
right to possess a functional, personal firearm, such
as a handgun or ordinary long gun (shotgun or rifle)
within the home.” J.A. 54a."

Well and good. There's no reason for Washington, D.C., or any other municipality or State for that matter, to forbid a man or woman from possession of a weapon in their homes for the purpose of self-defense. Can one ask for any more basic a right? Unless a police officer is stationed in one's home, and accompanies a person about at all times, then that person has to have access to some personal self-defense, if they want it. Seems straightforward to me.

But, Bush's lawyers, after 26 pages of legal back-and-forth, a good history lesson really, of the various laws that define the limitations of gun ownership--machineguns and felons excluded, we get to the black heart of the document...

"THE COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE
LOWER COURTS TO PERMIT THEM TO ANALYZE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE D.C. LAWS AT ISSUE
UNDER THE PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY
As discussed, a general prohibition on the possession
of a type or class of firearms is subject to heightened judicial
scrutiny that balances the impact of the challenged
restrictions on protected conduct and the strength of
the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant
restriction. The greater the scope of the prohibition and
its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult
it will be to defend under the Second Amendment."

So, we see what Fred Thompson is describing as overlawyering. And what I see as being as near to BushBackstabbing as one can imagine.

All we [the NRA, and other responsible gun owners] asked for was that this case make it's way to the Supreme Court of the land, so as to settle once and for all exactly what was intended by the 2nd Amendment; and put to rest whether or not a city (Washington D.C., San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, or any other) can say to it's Citizens, "No, you can't possess this gun in your home. Because we said so!" We really deserve some answer to that question.

Hearing this case this summer would be nice, before the Leftists take office and populate the Supreme Court with more leftists.

We can never trust Democrats and Leftists with the Constitution; it seems that they want to take it and 'remand' it to their own agenda.

You would think that this President, after having welcomed the support of the NRA and gun owners (hell, he won Tennessee in 2000 BECAUSE of the NRA's support, not in SPITE of it--and if Tennessee had fallen to Homeboy Gore, Bush would NOT have won) he would at least have thrown a bone to us. HA!

For some reason, I'm much less supportive of George Bush today.

Freakin' wussy.