This is a Cato special podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. The Bush Justice Department has

filed a curious brief on the first pure Second Amendment case to go before the

Supreme Court in many decades.

So what's their rationale?

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Bob Levy, co-counsel on the case challenging the DC

gun ban, weighs in. The case will be heard by the High Court today. the on behalf of the Justice Department took the position that the Second Amendment does in fact

secure an individual right to keep in bear arms, not a right that's limited to service in the

militia. And with that conclusion we certainly agree.

Second, the Solicitor General took the position that any regulation under the Second Amendment

has to be subject to some form of heightened scrutiny by the courts.

We have taken the position first that that scrutiny appropriately should be strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires a twofold showing by the

regulating body. First, that the government has a compelling interest in the regulation and second that the regulation is

narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest it's not any broader than necessary and

we have argued that because the right to keep in bear arms is a fundamental right, it like other fundamental

rights should be subject to strict scrutiny.

But we have further argued that even under the solicitor's standard of heightened scrutiny, which is not quite strict, but it's not a rubber stamp.

And in fact, even under the standard that the D.C. government recommends, which is a reasonableness

standard, the D.C. gun ban cannot withstand. which is a reasonableness standard.

The DC gun ban cannot withstand scrutiny under any of those standards,

so it is not even necessary for the court

to determine what the level of scrutiny should be, but if it does so, it should determine

that it's strict scrutiny.

...