The main problem I had with the brief was its insistance that "furthering government interests" was a sufficient reason to ignore or severely restrict an individual right. This essentially boils down to saying that we have rights, but we can only excercise them when it suits "government interests" to do so.
I also have to take issue with these statements:
There is nothing offered to back that up, especially in the face of certain CDC studies showing exactly the opposite.Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms
Again, nothing to back this up. "Legitimate private purpose" is a very nebulous term that leaves the door gaping wide open for pretty much any sort of regulation you could imagine.The federal prohibitions on the possession of particular types of firearms, such as machineguns, readily pass such scrutiny. Those prohibitions are carefully targeted to firearms that have little or no legitimate private purpose, they permit possession for lawful purposes of a broad class of firearms other than those regulated, and the government’s interest in regulating firearms like the machinegun to protect the public safety is paramount.
I think they're scared and are trying to "head it off at the pass". The NFA/FOPA combination is almost exactly analogous to the DC laws in question, except that they deal with machine guns instead of pistols. If one falls, the other won't be far behind.