I read the ACTUAL brief. It's wierd in some ways, and internally inconsistant.
In the first half, they lay the case for a right that is historical, and not limited to any of the wierd "collective right" theories that the left has been relying on to justify restrictions. Indeed, DOJ even cites quotes about the need for Arms to resist tyranny domestically (how THAT got in there is simply amazing).
In the SECOND half of the brief, they make their case that current law is Constitutional, and try to use spin to support their position.
Keep in mind that the DOJ is actually REQUIRED to always support the Constitutionality of federal law, and is not allowed to ever give an inch on that until the Court rules otherwise.
Actually, if you read the whole thing, you get a sense that whoever actually wrote the thing doesn't believe in what they are saying, and are making the weakest possible case for their position.
Remember, these are lawyers we're talking about. They have a different language where words don't mean what you think they do. And the Court does know that DOJ is a biased source required to try to uphold existing law. And the Justices DO "consider the source" and have been known to call "BS" when appropriate.
