March 14, 2013 - Senator Ted Cruz, in the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on a bill to ban assault weapons, talks about his familiarity with the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case.
He argues that a ban on assault weapons would be unconstitutional under the Heller decision. Interestingly, during the Heller case he argued exactly the opposite.
The first paragraph of the amici brief filed by Ted Cruz:
Amici, the State of Texas and 30 other States, have an interest in this case because of its potential impact on their citizens’ constitutional rights. The individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by the United States Constitution and the constitutions of forty-four States. (1) Given the significance of this fundamental right, the States have a substantial interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment is accorded its proper scope.
(1) Amici States have attached an Appendix outlining the relevant state constitutional and statutory provisions concerning firearms.
The Appendix is mentioned again on page 36:
It bears emphasis that amici States likewise have a strong interest in maintaining the many state laws prohibiting felons in possession, restricting machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, and the like. See Appendix.
But all 31 amici States agree that striking down the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on all operative firearms would pose no threat to these reasonable regulations.
The Appendix of Ted Cruz’s brief, previously referenced as a list of examples of States protecting the second amendment, and again as “reasonable regulations” includes these listings:
CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 53-202(b), (c) (assault weapons); 53a-211 (sawed-off shotguns and rifles)
MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 140, § 131M (assault weapons)
N.Y. PENAL LAW § 265.02 (machine guns, “assault weapons”)
Now Ted Cruz claims that his own examples of States’ “reasonable regulations” that protect the 2nd Amendment during the Heller case would be unconstitutional because of the Heller case.
Would that argument hold up in court?