Did you read the brief? I will quote directly from what Cruz wrote in the Brief.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_texas.pdf
Per the Brief
"Reasonable minds can differ about the Second
Amendment's scope?that is, about which government
regulations are permissible. And subsequent cases may
well present difficult questions about where precisely to
draw that line. Those vexing issues are not presented in
this case, however, and are appropriately left to another
day"
"On more difficult questions involving the Amendment's
application?such as registration requirements and
comprehensive regulation?the many amici States may
well part ways."
"Finally, federal laws regulating the import, export,
and transfer of firearms arise from Congress?s power to
?regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States,? and have only an incidental effect on the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. As such,
they would not be subject to heightened scrutiny.
Accordingly, there is no basis for the United States?s
concern that these laws may face invalidation under the
court of appeals?s decision. Indeed, 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"
Cruz clearly states the two questions in the Heller Brief
1. Does the 2nd Amendment grant an individual right?
2. Was the DC ban Constitutional?
That is all his entire brief is arguing and the Court decided he had it right. Good on him.
It is a rather brilliant brief that leaves little doubt regarding the argument that there is an individual right in the 2nd Amendment and total bans as constructed by DC are unconstutional.
The rest of the gun control agenda and other existing and continuing laws were never addressed in his brief and he never argued them before the court. His brief goes on for 70 pages, including the footnotes and references.
Show me where he says reasonable regulations of firearms is illegal or where he defines for the nation what reasonable is.
How much of the Ted Cruz brief did the NRA legal fund help pay for? The answer should be self evident in that Cruz was acting in official capacity as solicitor general in Texas. The NRA money did not fund a single dime of the Cruz brief. We would have had the brief with or without the NRA.
Unless you are suggesting the NRA illegally paid for Cruz to perform his official duties.
So the water isn't heavy for those of us able to read.
Nemont
