PDA

View Full Version : NRA has filed its Amicus in Heller


hoffmang
02-07-2008, 3:29 PM
NRA filed it's amicus brief in Heller (this is before the deadline which I believe is Monday 2/11 evening east coast time.)

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf

I'm about to dive in.

-Gene

DrjonesUSA
02-07-2008, 3:38 PM
Sweet, thanks for posting!!!!

Please do post your opinion of the brief - I'm very curious to know what you think.

Thank you!

Shane916
02-07-2008, 3:40 PM
Wow I wish I could write my essays like that :eek:

I especially like this:

In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers
guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear
arms for private purposes, not a collective right to
keep and bear arms only in connection with state
militia service. This is clear from the text of the
Amendment itself, which guarantees “the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms.” Throughout the
Constitution, individual rights are guaranteed to
“the people”; when the Framers refer to a power of a
State, they refer, unsurprisingly, to “the States.”

hoffmang
02-07-2008, 3:43 PM
Note this:


Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

-Gene

Piper
02-07-2008, 3:46 PM
So who do you think will carry more weight ? The senators and representatives or the solicitor general ?

MudCamper
02-07-2008, 4:02 PM
This part made me LOL:

The obvious
in terrorem purpose of this argument is to suggest
that if the Court holds that laws burdening the
fundamental right to keep and bear arms are subject
to strict scrutiny, governments may be powerless to
stop insane convicted felons from using sawed-off
shotguns to commit crimes in this very Court, or
even to punish them in the aftermath.

DrjonesUSA
02-07-2008, 4:05 PM
Wow I wish I could write my essays like that :eek:

I especially like this:
In adopting the Second Amendment, the Framers
guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear
arms for private purposes, not a collective right to
keep and bear arms only in connection with state
militia service. This is clear from the text of the
Amendment itself, which guarantees “the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms.” Throughout the
Constitution, individual rights are guaranteed to
“the people”; when the Framers refer to a power of a
State, they refer, unsurprisingly, to “the States.”



I'd *LOVE* to see the SCOTUS say, "When the Framers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, "The People" meant "American Citizens" in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th & 10th Amendments, but NOT the Second.

"The People" has a different meaning when used in the Second Amendment than the rest of the Bill of Rights."

Love,
The Supreme Court.

Josh3239
02-07-2008, 4:12 PM
"The People" has a different meaning when used in the Second Amendment than the rest of the Bill of Rights."

+1, I always got a kick out of the fact that everything in the Bill of Rights except the 2A was so clear and whenever "the people" are mentioned in the Bill of Rights it means exactly as it sounds but it is different with the Second Amendment.

Piper
02-07-2008, 4:15 PM
+1, I always got a kick out of the fact that everything in the Bill of Rights except the 2A was so clear and whenever "the people" are mentioned in the Bill of Rights it means exactly as it sounds but it is different with the Second Amendment.

Maybe someone took pages out of the chinese playbook. It sounds like it has the same meanig as the "People's Republic of China"

PonchoTA
02-07-2008, 4:16 PM
Note this:
Quote:
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

-Gene
What do you want to bet that in both cases, it's nearly 100% Republican support, and nearly 0% Democrat support?

Any takers? :43:

:TFH: does not apply here!

M. Sage
02-07-2008, 4:22 PM
Maybe someone took pages out of the chinese playbook. It sounds like it has the same meanig as the "People's Republic of China"

It's not China that came up with that... That's probably the oldest socialist trick in the book.

I keep wishing someone would argue collective rights with me. I want to point out to someone what the words printed on road signs and other CA property are. (Hint: it's not "Property of People of California.")

Smokeybehr
02-07-2008, 4:26 PM
I keep wishing someone would argue collective rights with me. I want to point out to someone what the words printed on road signs and other CA property are. (Hint: it's not "Property of People of California.")

That's an easy one: "Property of the State of California" unless it's an asset tag, which usually has "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" in small letters, and the agency's name in large letters below it, and above the asset number.

Scarecrow Repair
02-07-2008, 4:32 PM
It's not China that came up with that... That's probably the oldest socialist trick in the book.

Socialist my butt. It goes way back. I would not be surprised if the Romans said that, or the Greeks. I'm sure Egyptians used it, even if they didn't have voting. They must have had council meetings and take a show of hands.

deleted by PC police
02-07-2008, 4:36 PM
I have not been actively involved with 2nd Amendment polotics in a while, is there a thought that if the DC ban gets overturned that Californias stupid laws could be next?

Piper
02-07-2008, 4:43 PM
Maybe someone took pages out of the chinese playbook. It sounds like it has the same meanig as the "People's Republic of China"

My bad, I should have said socialist, totalitarian, dictatorial, despots play book. :D

aileron
02-07-2008, 4:45 PM
I have not been actively involved with 2nd Amendment polotics in a while, is there a thought that if the DC ban gets overturned that Californias stupid laws could be next?

Oh boy..... here we go. :lurk5:

Stick welcome to Calguns!!! :D

uh, there are tons of posts about this very topic. I will let some others comment that are better educated on cases that have happened here. But your assumption is a valid one.

Piper
02-07-2008, 4:47 PM
I have not been actively involved with 2nd Amendment polotics in a while, is there a thought that if the DC ban gets overturned that Californias stupid laws could be next?

That would be the hope, but it's unrealistic to believe that it will happen all at once.

Librarian
02-07-2008, 4:51 PM
A bunch more are up here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/)

* American Legislative Exchange Council
* Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
* Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
* Criminologists
* Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
* Foundation for Free Expression
* GeorgiaCarry.org
* National Rifle Association
* Rutherford Institute

Fjold
02-07-2008, 4:59 PM
I thought that the first part outlining the history of the NRA and the training etc. was a little out of place and showed some self interest but the explanations against the petitioners arguments was very well done.

aileron
02-07-2008, 5:00 PM
Note this:

Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

-Gene

Dont know how true this is, but it was on NorthEastShooters.

Opposition 18 supporters (all Dems)...

Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)*
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04)

Soldier415
02-07-2008, 5:15 PM
Dont know how true this is, but it was on NorthEastShooters.

Opposition 18 supporters (all Dems)...

Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)*
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04)


surprise surprise...:rolleyes:

Josh3239
02-07-2008, 5:16 PM
No surprise to see Mrs. Barrel Shroud up there...

Prc329
02-07-2008, 5:22 PM
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)

That explains a lot. :banghead::leaving:

How does she keep her job.

Ford8N
02-07-2008, 5:31 PM
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)

That explains a lot. :banghead::leaving:

How does she keep her job.

By the company she keeps. Look who are her friends.

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=26759

C.G.
02-07-2008, 5:51 PM
Good read, thanks for the link.:)

aileron
02-07-2008, 6:50 PM
surprise surprise...:rolleyes:

Yes, but this is the counter dem argument.



Nine Democrats in the Senate and 68 in the House joined much larger Republican contingents in signing the brief, which is expected to be filed Friday.


From this article.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-ZmXYEEGQaZEnaoNnkl1cN8pJ0QD8ULLUQO2


House, Senate Members Back DC Gun Owners

7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate are backing gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case.

The court next month will hear arguments in a challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, the most important gun rights case at the Supreme Court in 70 years.

Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.

"The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm ... a Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said at a Washington news conference Thursday.

Nine Democrats in the Senate and 68 in the House joined much larger Republican contingents in signing the brief, which is expected to be filed Friday.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias.

The Bush administration also supports individual gun rights. But the administration said governments still may impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and asked the justices to send the case back to lower courts without deciding whether the handgun ban fails that test.

Hutchison and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who also signed the brief, agreed that some restrictions are valid, citing their support for banning assault weapons.

But they said the court should declare the handgun ban unconstitutional and set a clear limit beyond which governments may not go to limit gun ownership.

Still some bastards are slow... look at Dem in bold.

bulgron
02-07-2008, 6:54 PM
I see Zoe Lofgren in the list of Dems opposing. She's my representative. I knew there was a reason why I shouldn't vote for her. :mad:

Prc329
02-07-2008, 10:22 PM
By the company she keeps. Look who are her friends.

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=26759

Is it just me or is she on every subcommittee where things are screwed up in this country right now.

mymonkeyman
02-07-2008, 11:24 PM
I thought that the first part outlining the history of the NRA and the training etc. was a little out of place and showed some self interest but the explanations against the petitioners arguments was very well done.


It's normal in amicus brief to describe who you are, why you are filing, and why what you have to say matters. Some amicus briefs have almost no legal reasoning and are just saying who you are and why a ruling against the party you support would really hurt you.

That being said, it seems kind of silly since everyone on the court knows who the NRA is. But it is required and some of the quotes form it, like being formed by Union generals, being the "oldest civil rights organization" seem targeted to the mid/left of the court (or clerks of justices who are mid/left), hoping the brief won't be ignored.

hoffmang
02-08-2008, 12:04 AM
That being said, it seems kind of silly since everyone on the court knows who the NRA is. But it is required and some of the quotes form it, like being formed by Union generals, being the "oldest civil rights organization" seem targeted to the mid/left of the court (or clerks of justices who are mid/left), hoping the brief won't be ignored.

Also, NRA was attempting to use its own history to point out that the "private arms for militia purposes" was historically accurate and hence the little NRA history lesson.

-Gene

kap
02-08-2008, 12:14 AM
I was actually enjoying reading this amicus today before getting pulled away today. I appreciated the way the NRA brought up it's history as a relevant part of the filing.

retired
02-08-2008, 1:05 AM
Maxine Waters would be expected to be on the list as she is a very far left rep. She is also a supporter of a female who executed and a NJ leo in 73 and injured another and fled to Cuba. She states it was a political act, so it was alright the officer was killed. She is more contemptible than Jackson and that is saying something.

Here is one link, but there are about 10 I found immediately.

http://njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/Joanne%20Chesimard.htm

aileron
02-08-2008, 6:31 AM
Geeze, Buckeye Firearms Foundation, is going for the kill regarding DC's Metropolitan Police Departments administration.

Liberty1
02-08-2008, 6:45 AM
Geeze, Buckeye Firearms Foundation, is going for the kill regarding DC's Metropolitan Police Departments administration.

I get their e-mail alerts. I like their style. I also get VCDL's alerts. Another aggressive organization of fine Americans!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/
MISSION: Buckeye Firearms Association is a grassroots political action committee (PAC) dedicated to defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense, hunting, competition, and recreation. With the help of our donors and volunteers, we work to elect pro-gun candidates and lobby for pro-gun legislation. **Named GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION OF THE YEAR by CCRKBA!**


http://www.vcdl.org/
The Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) was founded in October 1994 as the Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League (NVCDL). The group experienced enormous growth in membership statewide and was incorporated as VCDL in May of 1998. VCDL is a non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians and, most importantly, the proposition that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental Human Right.

"[VCDL] campaigns for the right of gun owners to tote firepower in all kinds of places ... including outdoor festivals and college campuses."
The Daily Press - Oct 20, 2007

"Virginia Citizens Defense League . . . is on a mission to root out every nugget of gun control it can detect in Virginia. It has been behind campaigns to make sure concealed weapons are allowed in local government buildings, even civic centers, and fought to open up state and local parks to concealed weapons."
The Daily Press - Nov 27, 2006

"They're pretty effective, I have to give them credit."
Jim Sollo, Chairman of Virginians Against Handgun Violence
Virginian Pilot - Nov 11, 2002

aileron
02-08-2008, 5:38 PM
A bunch more are up here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/)

* American Legislative Exchange Council
* Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
* Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
* Criminologists
* Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
* Foundation for Free Expression
* GeorgiaCarry.org
* National Rifle Association
* Rutherford Institute


There are now 18 posted amici briefs. Whoohoo, were not done I hope.

Gosh dang it, I got a lot more reading to go.

* American Legislative Exchange Council
* Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
* Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
* Criminologists
* Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
* Foundation for Free Expression
* GeorgiaCarry.org
* Grass Roots of South Carolina
* Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
* Libertarian National Committee
* Major General John D. Altenburg, et al.
* National Rifle Association
* Paragon Foundation
* Pink Pistols
* Rutherford Institute
* Second Amendment Foundation
* Virginia1774.org
* Women state legislators and academics

arster
02-09-2008, 12:21 PM
Just FYI, don't forget this link:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

Its the opposing side, same bedfellows that just don't see the truth or the reality of the case.

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Bar Association
American Public Health Association, et al.
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al.
City of Chicago
Coalition of civil rights groups
D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al.
District Attorneys
Former Department of Justice Officials
Historians
Major U.S. cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors
Members of Congress
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al.
New York and other states
Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler
Professors of criminal justice
Professors of linguistics
Violence Policy Center and various police chiefs
Related Posts

grywlfbg
02-09-2008, 1:37 PM
I realize they were dissecting DC's points but I am disturbed by NRA defending laws preventing criminals, the insane, etc from owning arms.

Now don't get me wrong I don't want convicted murders to legally own firearms (they'll still get them illegally but nevermind) but it's merely a quick stroke of the pen to call someone insane and thereby stripped of their RKBA. Let's also not forget how easy it is to be hauled in for a felony these days (Patriot Act, anyone?).

Again, not saying NRA should start a campaign to allow criminals to own guns, it just got me thinking about how easy it would be for the govt to systematically disarm members of the population by declaring them mentally unstable.

Ok, ok. I'll go sit in the corner w/ SAS now :chris:

paradox
02-09-2008, 3:22 PM
Again, not saying NRA should start a campaign to allow criminals to own guns, it just got me thinking about how easy it would be for the govt to systematically disarm members of the population by declaring them mentally unstable.

Ok, ok. I'll go sit in the corner w/ SAS now :chris:

Read the brief by the Rutherford Institute. Wonderfully astute tinfoilhattery :TFH:

Argument.......................................... ...................................4

I. The Framers Of The Constitution
Intended The Second Amendment
To Apply To Individuals To Serve
As A Guarantor Against Tyrannical
Government........................................ ................4

II. The Militarization Of Police Forces
Represents A Modern-Day Standing
Army.............................................. ..................12

III. African-American Experiences Show
The Necessity Of The Individual
Right To Bear Arms.....................................15

A. Historical Abuses...............................15

B. Modern-Day Abuses..........................19

GuyW
02-09-2008, 4:51 PM
Read the brief by the Rutherford Institute. Wonderfully astute tinfoilhattery :TFH:

The Brady Bunch agrees with you...I don't...

paradox
02-09-2008, 5:23 PM
The Brady Bunch agrees with you...I don't...

I meant it as a compliment. So far it has been my favorite brief yet.

GuyW
02-09-2008, 5:44 PM
I meant it as a compliment. So far it has been my favorite brief yet.

Ooops, sorry....that didn't come thru to me...

Scarecrow Repair
02-09-2008, 6:15 PM
The Brady Bunch agrees with you...I don't...

Bingo. Reading about the very real tyranny of the KKK infested state, county, and city governments which inspired the Deacons for Defense was a revelation to me. It brought the second amendment to life in a way no arguing about founding fathers' intents ever did. This was real tyranny, just 40 years ago, not some moldy ramble about redcoats stealing flintlocks.

Read that Rutherford brief; if that is your first exposure to the racist origins of gun control, you are in for a shock.

I suppose, in some ways, it is a disservice to say that guncontrol roots are in racism. Gun control seeks to disarm everybody so that those in power, and those who aspire to be the ones in charge, sleep easier knowing they don't need to use persuasion and intelligent arguemnt to shape society. It starts with the poor and powerless, and slaves just happened to be the most powerless at the time.

I sometimes wonder at what an incredible difference there would have been im American history and current society of the original constitution had had some kind of schedule for phasing out slavery.

Edit to add that I too had not realized it was a compliment, and should have known that that author would have meant it as one. Still, all you newbies out there who don't know about the background of gun control could do worse than start there.

hoffmang
02-10-2008, 2:12 PM
Just as libel isn't protected free speech and hasn't been since before the Founding, violent felons and the criminally or adjudicatly insane have long been allowed to have their RKBA taken away. What will be different post Heller is that all classes are going to have a fundamental right to apply to have their disability removed.

Think about it - there are lots of real exceptions to the freedom of speech that we all comfortably accept but watch like hawks for abuse. Much the same will be the case for the 2A once things become more rational after Heller

-Gene