RedState.com is reporting that Fred Thompson wasted no time in condemning President Bush's Solicitor General's request that the D.C. Circuit Court remand the District of Columbia v. Heller appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding" under a less demanding constitutional standard.

From the story:

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa's Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.'s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General's request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding", the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was "overlawyering" and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The DC District Court in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, struck down the DC ban on the possession of hand guns even in one's own home. Judge Silberman ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to protect one's home with arms that pre-dates the Constititution.

NationalReview.com's Jonathan Adler followed up by noting "I do not know whether any of the other campaigns have taken notice of the DoJ brief, but Fred has. ...Thompson accused the administration of "overlawyering" the case. After all, if an individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not proscribe an outright ban on handgun possession, there is not much left of the rights it purportedly protects."

Indeed. And Fred Thompson stands alone among the short list of pro-gun Presidential candidates who is paying attention to (i.e. leading on) the latest developments in this crucial Second Amendment issue.

By Ken Blackwell

Et tu, Brute? In the waning days of the Bush Administration, Justice Department lawyers have filed a curious amicus brief in the DC gun ban case before the US Supreme Court. The attorneys took a middle-of-the-road approach to Second Amendment freedoms. They argued that gun ownership is not a “fundamental” right. Instead, they say, it is a right deserving only an “intermediate” level of protection.

The brief is a disappointing about face for a Justice Department once lauded for its ardent defense of Second Amendment rights.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey owes gun owners an explanation for this late betrayal.

...It appears that the Justice Department is trying to say this is a right that should be protected, but the level of protection should be low enough to allow government to broadly restrict or maybe even eliminate your ability to exercise that right. They try to split the baby of having a right but letting government do almost whatever it wants to that right.

The problem with splitting a baby in half is that the baby usually dies. If our rights can be regulated to the point that we can’t exercise them in our own homes, then they’ve been regulated out of existence.

So much for civil rights.

...I have gotten solid information from some good lawyers at the American Civil Rights Union, in addition to legal perspective, from a couple of the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country.

They are gravely concerned about the Justice Department brief in the Heller case, saying that this could be a Trojan horse in the Second Amendment. They say that for various legal reasons if the Supreme Court were to adopt the position in this brief it would be toxic for gun rights in America.

Click here for the entire op-ed at Townhall.com.