PDA

View Full Version : Flood of briefs on the Heller case


tboyer
02-09-2008, 11:46 PM
There is a veritable flood of briefs on the all important Heller case,
about the right to keep and bear arms in Washington, D.C. I believe the
cut-off was today.



Here's a short list of some of the recent submissions:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_02_03_archive.html#6791756896134411968

C.G.
02-10-2008, 12:30 AM
This one is good read, thanks for the link:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacCriminologists.pdf

Patriot
02-10-2008, 12:44 AM
Anyone read through the AHSA brief? Surprisingly enough the headings look fairly favorable.

BillCA
02-10-2008, 5:47 AM
Brace yourself for more. Stock up on Murine. ;)
Monday, 11 February is the cutoff date.

Read the Buckeye Foundation brief. They won't have any friends on the DC Metro PD. :eek: :D

Respondent's brief (filed by Gura) is a beautiful piece of work that really slams the door on the "militia rights/state-right" argument.

aileron
02-10-2008, 8:46 AM
So far 22 are in versus 19 for the other side.

As BillCA said, tomorrow is the cutoff date, so hopefully there is a few more out there.

Its slow going reading them all, but man there fun to read, and yea Buckeye Foundation really let the MPD have it. Wow!!!!!

Rhys898
02-10-2008, 10:24 AM
there is at least the one from 30 states authored by the Texas SG.

Jer

hoffmang
02-10-2008, 12:46 PM
Monday should be the final flood. Lots of good reading - especially the CORE and Libertarian Party. I've actually never seen the Libertarian party do so much good in so little space in a long time...

-Gene

wilit
02-10-2008, 4:02 PM
I guess Zumbo isn't going to file an Amicus brief? :D

GuyW
02-10-2008, 4:17 PM
"Monday should be the final flood."

Hopefully the anti's will flood their briefs when we get the Decision...

Patriot
02-10-2008, 4:18 PM
"Monday should be the final flood."

Hopefully the anti's will flood their briefs when we get the Decision...

:rofl2:

VegasND
02-10-2008, 4:27 PM
"Monday should be the final flood."

Hopefully the anti's will flood their briefs when we get the Decision...

Well said, sir. Well said.:cool2:

HowardW56
02-10-2008, 4:34 PM
There is a veritable flood of briefs on the all important Heller case,
about the right to keep and bear arms in Washington, D.C. I believe the
cut-off was today.



Here's a short list of some of the recent submissions:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_02_03_archive.html#6791756896134411968


There are 25 amici curiae briefs on the docket as of Friday... Gura & Possessky's website shows 41 briefs in support of one party or the other. The US Supreme Court Clerk's office must be slow in entering them into the system

Librarian
02-11-2008, 10:39 AM
link (http://davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacIntlLawEnforcementEduc&TrainersAssoc.pdf)
BRIEF OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS
ASSOCIATION (ILEETA), THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS (IALEFI), MARYLAND
STATE LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION, 29 ELECTED CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, SAN FRANCISCO
VETERAN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
TEXAS POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS
MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK
STATE ASSOCIATION OF AUXILIARY POLICE,
MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIF., SHERIFF THOMAS
D. ALLMAN, OREGON STATE REP. ANDY OLSON,
NATIONAL POLICE DEFENSE FOUNDATION,
LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA,
AND THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE AS
AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
DAVID B. KOPEL
Counsel of Record
INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE


C.D. MICHEL
JASON A. DAVIS
TRUTANICH-MICHEL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
92 pages of The anti-crime effects of citizen handgun owner-
ship provide enormous benefits to law enforcement,
because there are fewer home invasion emergencies
requiring an immediate police response, and because
the substantial reductions in rates of burglary, as-
sault, and other crimes allow the police and district
attorneys to concentrate more resources on other
cases and on deterrence.
and support.

And these elected DA's signed the brief:

Alpine County, California, District Attorney Will Richmond
Amador County, California, District Attorney Todd Reibe
Butte County, California, District Attorney Michael Ramsey
Colusa County, California, District Attorney John Poyner
Del Norte County, California, District Attorney Michael D. Reise
El Dorado County, California, District Attorney Vern Pierson
Fresno County, California, District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan
Glenn County, California, District Attorney Robert Holzapfel
Imperial County, California, District Attorney Gilbert Otero
Kern County, California, District Attorney Edward Jagels
Kings County, California, District Attorney Ron Calhoun
Madera County District Attorney Ernest J. LiCalsi
Mariposa County, California, District Attorney Robert H. Brown
Merced County, California, District Attorney Larry Morse
Modoc County, California, District Attorney Gary Woolverton
Mono County, California, District Attorney George Booth
Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas
Placer County, California, District Attorney Brad Fenocchio
San Bernadino, California, District Attorney Michael Ramos
Santa Barbara County, California, District Attorney Christie Stanley
Shasta County, California, District Attorney Gerald C. Benito
Sierra County, California, District Attorney Larry Allen
Siskiyou County, California, District Attorney J. Kirk Andrus
Solano County, Calif., District Attorney David W. Paulson
Sutter County, California, District Attorney Carl V. Adams
Tehama County, California, District Attorney Gregg Cohen
Trinity County, California, District Attorney Michael Harper
Tulare County, California, District Attorney Phil Cline
Ventura County, California, District Attorney Gregory Totten
I'll bet that's 29 out of the infamous 58 who will not misinterpret California law.

Take that, Kamala Harris.

duenor
02-11-2008, 11:14 AM
this week i will send a thank you letter to each of those DAs. they are heroes in my book - californias who refuse to join the sheepherders.

aileron
02-11-2008, 11:27 AM
I just finished reading that brief during lunch, awesome. Makes me proud of our police forces. Stood up for the citizen, and put the proper perspective on it.

So nice to see.

I'm starting to get that Who's your Daddy feeling about this case. We might go for the win here in a big way. :D

Of course this is just my gut feeling. Don't quote me on it. INAL.

GuyW
02-11-2008, 11:42 AM
A BIG THANX TO THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO STOOD TALL ON THIS ISSUE:

INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS ASSOCIATION (ILEETA)

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS (IALEFI)

MARYLAND STATE FOP

SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOC

SAN FRANCISCO VETERAN POA

LONG BEACH POA

TEXAS POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION

TEXAS MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION

NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF AUXILIARY POLICE,

MENDOCINO COUNTY, CA SHERIFF THOMAS ALLMAN

NATIONAL POLICE DEFENSE FOUNDATION

LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA

Patriot
02-11-2008, 11:50 AM
link (http://davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacIntlLawEnforcementEduc&TrainersAssoc.pdf)
92 pages of and support.

And these elected DA's signed the brief:

My DA is on the list :jump:

fairfaxjim
02-11-2008, 11:54 AM
link (http://davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacIntlLawEnforcementEduc&TrainersAssoc.pdf)
92 pages of and support.

And these elected DA's signed the brief:

Alpine County, California, District Attorney Will Richmond
Amador County, California, District Attorney Todd Reibe
Butte County, California, District Attorney Michael Ramsey
Colusa County, California, District Attorney John Poyner
Del Norte County, California, District Attorney Michael D. Reise
El Dorado County, California, District Attorney Vern Pierson
Fresno County, California, District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan
Glenn County, California, District Attorney Robert Holzapfel
Imperial County, California, District Attorney Gilbert Otero
Kern County, California, District Attorney Edward Jagels
Kings County, California, District Attorney Ron Calhoun
Madera County District Attorney Ernest J. LiCalsi
Mariposa County, California, District Attorney Robert H. Brown
Merced County, California, District Attorney Larry Morse
Modoc County, California, District Attorney Gary Woolverton
Mono County, California, District Attorney George Booth
Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas
Placer County, California, District Attorney Brad Fenocchio
San Bernadino, California, District Attorney Michael Ramos
Santa Barbara County, California, District Attorney Christie Stanley
Shasta County, California, District Attorney Gerald C. Benito
Sierra County, California, District Attorney Larry Allen
Siskiyou County, California, District Attorney J. Kirk Andrus
Solano County, Calif., District Attorney David W. Paulson
Sutter County, California, District Attorney Carl V. Adams
Tehama County, California, District Attorney Gregg Cohen
Trinity County, California, District Attorney Michael Harper
Tulare County, California, District Attorney Phil Cline
Ventura County, California, District Attorney Gregory Totten
I'll bet that's 29 out of the infamous 58 who will not misinterpret California law.

Take that, Kamala Harris.

Of the 9 counties that surround the San Francisco bay, only one is signed on - Solano County, all the rest:

Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Sonoma

are all missing. God that sucks!

ldivinag
02-11-2008, 1:48 PM
how come i didnt see a CALGUNS brief... lol...

mymonkeyman
02-11-2008, 2:51 PM
how come i didnt see a CALGUNS brief... lol...

Because the Supreme Court does not take kindly to briefs composed mostly of smileys and inside jokes?

Librarian
02-11-2008, 3:03 PM
Because the Supreme Court does not take kindly to briefs composed mostly of smileys and inside jokes?
Narrow-minded of them....

Academics for Second Amendment brief here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf).

Dave Hardy's (one of the authors) commentary here (http://armsandthelaw.com/).

Patriot
02-11-2008, 3:28 PM
Because the Supreme Court does not take kindly to briefs composed mostly of smileys and inside jokes?

We r seriouz court. Dis be seriouz case :p

Scarecrow Repair
02-11-2008, 4:23 PM
The one from Congress and the VP kind of made me queasy. All that gunk about Congress being in the forefront of protecting the individual RKBA ... made me not take them very seriously, as if they think all the gun control they've passed somehow counts for the opposite. I guess it's just the usual political doublespeak.

Liberty1
02-11-2008, 5:50 PM
These pinkos are on our side http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacPinkPistols.pdf


http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html

hoffmang
02-11-2008, 7:10 PM
I really like the brief from The Center For Individual Freedom (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_cif.pdf). They take the collectivists/states rights interpretation to its quite logical legal outcome. Machine guns for all Texans and California stopping deployment of the CA National Guard to foreign wars!

-Gene

MonsterMan
02-11-2008, 7:37 PM
I really like the brief from The Center For Individual Freedom (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_cif.pdf). They take the collectivists/states rights interpretation to its quite logical legal outcome. Machine guns for all Texans and California stopping deployment of the CA National Guard to foreign wars!

-Gene



I liked it also. It was a good read and I liked the points they were making.

Fjold
02-11-2008, 8:00 PM
There is some fantastic reading here.

CCWFacts
02-11-2008, 8:20 PM
These pinkos are on our side http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacPinkPistols.pdf

I liked their brief (singular)!

It made some interesting points. They made a strong point that the police don't have a duty to protect, and in the case of gay victims, the police are often less responsive than they should be. They itemized some of the anti-gay violence which is ongoing and make a clear point that the only way of preventing that is by being armed.

They also made an interesting point I hadn't thought of: if the 2A is restricted only to people in the government military, then gays are excluded from enjoying the 2A because gays are excluded from the military.

They also emphasized that most anti-gay attacks occur in the home. Heller is a "keep" case, so they need to focus on owning in the home, not on carrying, for this case. (Must refrain from making jokes about "gay" and "bear"...)

.223
02-12-2008, 1:17 AM
My DA is on the list :jump:

Mine too :)

BillCA
02-12-2008, 5:56 AM
For those who haven't read the Heller brief by Gura et al., I will list out some of the salient points I gleaned in reading this "brief".
Note: This one is not as sophomoric as D.C.'s brief nor is it quite as insomnia curing.


Argues the "militia clause" cannot limit, transform, or negate its operative rights-securing text.
Reiterates the pre-existing right to arms.
Reiterates the individual rights secured by the text.
Details the meaning of "keep" and "bear" in a non-military context.
Explains the 18th century meaning of "well regulated"
Reviews historical documents supporting the individual right as part of English Common law.
Shows the framers rejected a proposal to add a "states' right" to control their own militias.
A short history of British abuses against colonist-owned arms.
Rebuts the idea of the militia must be a government-controlled entity.
Argues D.C. laws are unconstitutional;
That a categorical test makes it easy to determine handguns are protected;
Claims protected guns are those in common use by civilians and have military utility.
Dances around the machinegun implications by saying the court might exempt machineguns because they were not "in common use" at that time.
Argues the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right
Argues that strict scrutiny is the correct standard in Second Amendment challenges.
Shows conclusively that D.C. is bound by the Constitution.The attorneys for Heller are attempting to focus solely on the main issues - that banning hanguns is unconstitutional as is regulating the keeping of effective (assembled) arms in the home. They do lay groundwork for arguing against the machinegun ban but try to minimize concerns that a pro-2A decision would suddenly open the floodgates.

After reading the District's brief and this one, I get the impression that D.C. is outgunned and outclassed. But then, I'll admit to some bias too. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif The difference is about like...
-OJ Prosecutor Marcia Clark vs. Perry Mason
-A champion high school football team vs. the NY Giants
-Swating a fly with a Buick
:D

BillCA
02-12-2008, 6:05 AM
A couple of other points Gura et al. makes that are both important and interesting. First is that the volunteer militas of the states were not - nor could they be - governmental bodies (ref: Pg18);


Notably, prerevolutionary Americans forming voluntary associations for the purpose of resisting British rule, including Washington and Mason, employed the term “well regulated militia” to describe their associations. 1 Kate Mason Rowland, LIFE OF GEORGE MASON 428
(1892). These organizations were decidedly not sanctioned by any governmental authority.

Later, when dissecting the 2nd's wording, Gura slams the door (hopefully once and for all) on the notion that the 2nd Amendment "only" guarantees a state's right to arm & organize it's own militia (Ref: P35-36);


If guaranteeing the people’s “right to keep and bear arms,” with reference to a “well regulated militia” and “a free state,” were intended to secure the states a right to arm their militias, the Virginia Convention would not have separately proposed an explicit reservation of the states’ militia powers. That the Second Amendment’s direct precursor came to Congress in a “bill of rights,” alongside a state militia power among “other amendments,” strongly suggests the two are not identical.

Indeed, if rejected language is any clue as to the meaning of that which was accepted, perhaps the most telling example was the Framers’ rejection of the following proposed amendment: “That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. . . .” FIRST SENATE JOURNAL 126.

This proposal stated, in unmistakably direct and concise fashion, exactly that meaning which Petitioners would divine in the Second Amendment through tortured linguistics, fanciful explanations, and “hidden history.” And it was rejected by the Framers. “[H]istory does not warrant concluding that it necessarily follows from the pairing of the concepts that a person has a right to bear arms solely in his function as a member of the militia.” Robert Sprecher, The Lost Amendment, 51 AM. BAR ***’N J. 554, 557 (1965).


With regard to the use of the term "in common use at the time" and the controversy some have indicated, I think the concerns are not necessarily valid when one looks at the subject closer.

The phrase "in common use at the time" is part of the SCOTUS precedent on the subject and therefore used by Gura to establish part of the "test" to determine if a firearm is protected or not. Let's look at the relevant quote again...

In sum, an “arm” is protected under the Miller test if it is of the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition), and (2) would be useful in militia service.

What Gura is saying here (and leaving the door open for a later argument) is that part of the test is... would a civilian find a lawful purpose in owning this arm if there were no laws prohibiting it's possession or use? I think we can see that it's quite possible to say "yes" to this question in regards to Class-III full-auto firearms. One has only to look at the marketing materials for the Thompson SMG in the 20's. One ad shows a rancher using it against coyotes or wolves preying on his sheep. Another showed it's use in fighting off potential cattle rustlers. How hard would it be, if the NFA never existed, to imagine seeing a 2006 advertisement featuring a citizen of New Orleans using a Bushmaster M4 Carbine to defend against post-Katrina looters? :D

Looking closer, I think we'd have a harder time finding a legitimate "lawful purpose" for such things as M203 grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, grenades, mines and other similar devices. Somehow I don't think you could justify owning a TOW missle launcher to remove tree stumps off your back forty. ;)

BillCA
02-12-2008, 6:15 AM
The brief by Texas, et al., is interesting to read. First off, you have thirty-one states - 62% of them - acting in concert to support the individual rights view and supporting the D.C. Appeals court decision.

If you don't think this is ground-breaking, consider the trouble you'd have getting the Attorney Generals from that many states to sing the same words to God Bless America in unison. :D

Texas argues that the 2nd is a fundamental right from the outset and supports this assertion in their arguments.

Texas argues that no membership in a militia is required;


The District’s narrow interpretation of “Militia” to include only some select body of permanent soldiers is also belied by the provisions of the Militia Act, enacted by the Second Congress the year after the Second Amendment’s ratification. The Militia Act expressly defined the militia as “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years.” Militia Act, ch. XXXIII, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792).2 Thus, the “Militia” contemplated by the Framers was not limited to those enrolled in some type of state or local militia organization.
Footnote 2 pointed out the Milita Act (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)required citizens to arm themselves with a firearm, hardly something that could be described as a "states" right;


2. Indeed, the Militia Act not only permitted gun ownership by every able-bodied man, it required it—obliging by law each man to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock . . . or with a good rifle.” Militia Act, 1 Stat., at 271 (emphasis added).

Texas says there are two questions before the court - Does the amendment protect any individual rights at all? And do the D.C. statutes run afoul of those constitutional rights? Then they take a slap at the U.S. Attorney General's brief;


...But the two questions in this case are, in the eyes of amici, not difficult. If the answer to either question were in the negative, then the Second Amendment’s protections would be rendered illusory.

For the same reason, the amici States believe that the Department of Justice’s position that this case should be vacated and remanded is indefensible. Under any standard, including that advocated by the Department, a total prohibition on the possession of any functioning firearm cannot be sustained.


After discussing some history of the right to arms and the experiences of the Framers, Texas argues that The People could not be disarmed...


The Second Amendment answered the potential threat of a standing army with the guarantee that individual citizens could not be disarmed. The Framers saw that individual right as an essential bulwark of the people’s liberties. This Court should as well, and should affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.6


After making the statement that arms were necessary to support a militia who would be armed and outnumber any standing army that could be raised, Texas argues in footnote number 6 for immediate incorporation as a fundamental right. That's 31 states agreeing that incorporation could be justly decided by SCOTUS in this case!



6. Although the Court need not reach the issue of incorporation in this case, amici States submit that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and so is properly subject to incorporation. To be sure, early decisions of this Court cast doubt on Second Amendment incorporation, see United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1886), but those opinions predated the Court’s broad-based incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968). In the judgment of amici States, the right to keep and bear arms is “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). Authors of the Fourteenth Amendment concurred. See Van Alstyne, supra note 4, at 1252 (noting that in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard of Michigan described the right to keep and bear arms as among the Constitution’s “great fundamental guarantees” (internal quotation marks omitted)).


Texas also takes a shot at the absurdity of D.C.'s statutes by pointing out the D.C. laws are in opposition to all 50 state legislatures;


The Legislatures of all fifty States are united in their rejection of bans on private handgun ownership. Every State in the Union permits private citizens to own handguns. Forty-five States go further, allowing private citizens to carry concealed handguns for self-defense. Thus, the District’s sweeping firearm prohibitions are not only contrary to the Constitution, but also contrary to the reasoned judgment of every state legislature in the Nation.


Addressing the U.S. DOJ concerns that a postitive ruling would overturn federal laws, Texas thinks that most would be upheld (such as prohibitions against felons, insane persons, regulations on imports and restrictions on machine guns). Then they conclude their arguments;


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. Instead, this case is a threshold case: at issue is whether the Second Amendment has any modern meaning whatsoever. Remaining faithful to the Constitution, there should be only one answer.

CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.


Gotta love it!

BillCA
02-12-2008, 6:20 AM
I wrote this when there were 37 briefs filed and there are now 42 supporting Amicus briefs and I haven't yet read as many as I'd like.

But who has filed in support of Heller? Some of these briefs are under one name but include other persons or groups. So I created a list of who was represented by the Amicus briefs.

The briefs represent over 650 people or organizations, including;

250 Members of the House of Representatives
122 Women State Legislators
55 Members of the Senate
42 State Firearm Associations
32 Professors or educators
30 State goverments
29 California county district attorneys
12 Former Senior DOJ officials
11 Law Enforcement associations
7 Retired U.S. Army Generals (2-star to 4-star)

You can see the list at: http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm (http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm)
Note: It's sorted by the title or interest column, then by the name of the person or group.

Names of interest that have filed in support of Heller are;
Edwin Meese III - Attorney General under Reagan.
Robert H. Bork - SCOTUS nominee, DC Court of Appeals '82-'88
Joyce Lee Malcolm, Dr. - Professor of Legal History, George Mason
Gary Mauser - Professor Emeritus, Institute For Canadian Urban Research Studies
JOSEPH B. SCARNATI, III - President Pro Tempore-Pennsylvania State Senate
SUZANNA GRATIA HUPP - Citizen & former Texas state representative

aileron
02-12-2008, 10:14 AM
Somehow I don't think you could justify owning a TOW missle launcher to remove tree stumps off your back forty. ;)

Don't know, I think its worth at least trying to remove tree stumps that way. Just to see if it works. ;)

Sgt Raven
02-12-2008, 11:26 AM
I really like the brief from The Center For Individual Freedom (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_cif.pdf). They take the collectivists/states rights interpretation to its quite logical legal outcome. Machine guns for all Texans and California stopping deployment of the CA National Guard to foreign wars!

-Gene

And if you read between the lines a collective ruling would allow any or all the states the right to have ‘nukes’ to protect themselves from the feds. :p

aileron
02-12-2008, 11:36 AM
The Academics for the Second Amendment's brief was very interesting for those of you who want to get an idea of what the founders thought a militia was.

Liberty1
02-12-2008, 3:12 PM
I wrote this when there were 37 briefs filed and there are now 42 supporting Amicus briefs and I haven't yet read as many as I'd like.

But who has filed in support of Heller? Some of these briefs are under one name but include other persons or groups. So I created a list of who was represented by the Amicus briefs.

The briefs represent over 650 people or organizations, including;

250 Members of the House of Representatives
122 Women State Legislators
55 Members of the Senate
42 State Firearm Associations
32 Professors or educators
30 State goverments
29 California county district attorneys
12 Former Senior DOJ officials
11 Law Enforcement associations
7 Retired U.S. Army Generals (2-star to 4-star)

You can see the list at: http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm (http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm)
Note: It's sorted by the title or interest column, then by the name of the person or group.

Names of interest that have filed in support of Heller are;
Edwin Meese III - Attorney General under Reagan.
Robert H. Bork - SCOTUS nominee, DC Court of Appeals '82-'88
Joyce Lee Malcolm, Dr. - Professor of Legal History, George Mason
Gary Mauser - Professor Emeritus, Institute For Canadian Urban Research Studies
JOSEPH B. SCARNATI, III - President Pro Tempore-Pennsylvania State Senate
SUZANNA GRATIA HUPP - Citizen & former Texas state representative


I hope the Solicitor General feels like the chump he is!!! He should have resigned if he didn't believe in what he was most likely forced to write.

Liberty1
02-12-2008, 3:15 PM
The brief by Texas, et al., is interesting to read. First off, you have thirty-one states - 62% of them - acting in concert to support the individual rights view and supporting the D.C. Appeals court decision.

And what, only 10% of the states for DC?

Shotgun Man
02-12-2008, 3:26 PM
You can see the list at: http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm (http://dragon.hematite.com/Heller_Amici.htm)
Note: It's sorted by the title or interest column, then by the name of the person or group.

Strange that the only District Attorneys to sign were from California. One could get the wrong impression that California supports gun rights.

Liberty1
02-12-2008, 3:35 PM
Strange that the only District Attorneys to sign were from California. One could get the wrong impression that California supports gun rights.

Well, with 31 states' AGs taking a stand their DAs didn't need to. And it is quite telling that CA's AG didn't but 29 DAs did. We should flood them with thanks! And keep it pouring in with a few OLL packets included;). Everyone nationally, even the el Supremos, probably knows where the State of CA stands on gun rights.

aileron
02-12-2008, 4:26 PM
I'm seeing 47 briefs now. Wow!!!

Thats just shocking.

ke6guj
02-12-2008, 4:32 PM
link (http://davekopel.org/Briefs/07-290bsacIntlLawEnforcementEduc&TrainersAssoc.pdf)
92 pages of and support.

And these elected DA's signed the brief:


San Bernadino, California, District Attorney Michael Ramos

I'll bet that's 29 out of the infamous 58 who will not misinterpret California law.

Take that, Kamala Harris.

Does it irritate anybody else that they couldn't even spell San BernaRdino correct in the brief?

Matt C
02-12-2008, 4:55 PM
Quote:
In sum, an “arm” is protected under the Miller test if it is of the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition), and (2) would be useful in militia service.
What Gura is saying here (and leaving the door open for a later argument) is that part of the test is... would a civilian find a lawful purpose in owning this arm if there were no laws prohibiting it's possession or use? I think we can see that it's quite possible to say "yes" to this question in regards to Class-III full-auto firearms. One has only to look at the marketing materials for the Thompson SMG in the 20's. One ad shows a rancher using it against coyotes or wolves preying on his sheep. Another showed it's use in fighting off potential cattle rustlers. How hard would it be, if the NFA never existed, to imagine seeing a 2006 advertisement featuring a citizen of New Orleans using a Bushmaster M4 Carbine to defend against post-Katrina looters? :D

Looking closer, I think we'd have a harder time finding a legitimate "lawful purpose" for such things as M203 grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, grenades, mines and other similar devices. Somehow I don't think you could justify owning a TOW missle launcher to remove tree stumps off your back forty. ;)

That is exactly what we DO NOT want the more liberal members of SCOTUS to be thinking about, at least right now...

aileron
02-12-2008, 7:19 PM
American Center for Law and justice was a good read.


Petitioner’s argument, that legislative acts of the District of Columbia Council, which are purely local in nature, are not subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Bill of Rights, ignores the reality that the Council is a creation of the federal Congress acting only pursuant to authority delegated by Congress. More importantly, if Petitioner’s assertion were accepted, both Congress and the Council would be free to trample the constitutional rights of United States citizens who reside in the District. Indeed, under the District’s rationale, there would be no impediment to the Council’s establishing of an official church within the District. Nor would such body be prohibited from passing a law banning demonstrations from the streets and sidewalks of the District, or from arresting demonstrators whose message is distasteful to the government. Since the adoption of the federal Constitution, such actions have been understood by all to be prohibited to the federal government, as they would undoubtedly interfere with fundamental rights of the people, yet if Petitioner is successful here, citizens of the District – the seat of the federal government tasked with ensuring the continued enjoyment of these fundamental rights – would be the one group of United States citizens denied such rights. The Council, when legislating for the District, may not disregard the guarantees secured in the Bill of Rights.


Based on the practices of the day, the Framers understood that the most effective way to preserve the liberty of this newly established nation—a nation established by a Constitution expressly elevating individual rights—was to ensure the presence of a “well-regulated Militia.” In this particular context, “Militia” does not refer to standing armies, such as the United States military or the National Guard, as one might understand them today; at the time of the founding, “Militia” were “composed of the body of the people,”5 and, as such, were entirely distinct from the regular armed forces of the United States.


Just as the Framers understood that the best way to preserve the liberty of the country was to ensure the presence of a well-regulated militia, the Framers also understood that the most effective way to ensure the presence of a well-regulated militia was to protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms in order to secure it against the federal government. This notion was undoubtedly based on the practice of states, as showcased in Miller, which required private citizens to enroll in the militia and to provide their own arms. Understandably, if the government were permitted to infringe the ability of the people to arm themselves, this would clearly undermine the presence of the well-regulated citizen militia, which would, in turn, undermine the desired end of the Second Amendment: preserving the liberty of the newly established nation.


The Second Amendment, like the rest of its Bill of Rights counterparts, preserves individual rights. The Second Amendment would be flaccid indeed if its only purpose were to allow soldiers in the U.S. Military or the National Guard to keep their weapons at home. That narrow purpose does not comport with the whole of the Bill of Rights, as it would imply that the soldier’s “right” to keep weapons at home would be based on his or her status as a soldier, rather than on his or her status as a human being. A true understanding of the political ideologies upon which this nation was built eliminates the possibility that the drafters haphazardly included in the Bill of Rights a clause intended to do anything but protect and secure individual human rights. The Second Amendment expressly secures the right of individual citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms for private purposes.

A lot of these amicis are really good actually. Surprising looks into what DC is asking for on some of them.

BillCA
02-13-2008, 7:05 AM
That is exactly what we DO NOT want the more liberal members of SCOTUS to be thinking about, at least right now...

BWO - exactly. That is why Gura has tried to focus on the issue-at-hand which is handguns and keeping long guns disassembled or locked in the home. They have minimized concerns about Class-III guns by closing (but not locking) the door to the issue in some clever ways. Other briefs have indicated that those decisions can be deferred for another day too and focused on the case at hand.

In essence, most of the Amici have said "let's worry about those issues later" and focused on the supporting the individual rights view and that government cannot prohibit people from owning handguns.

Soldier415
02-13-2008, 12:45 PM
http://images.mysanantonio.com/opinion/cartoons/nacho/large/2007_04_22_nacho.jpg

yellowfin
02-13-2008, 4:11 PM
Geez, I wouldn't have to do my laundry for a very long time if I had that many briefs.

Liberty1
02-14-2008, 1:40 PM
This case keeps getting more interesting!


http://armsandthelaw.com/

SG and Texas SG move for argument
Posted by David Hardy · 14 February 2008 10:06 AM
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell points out an interesting section of the Supreme Court docket:

Feb 11 2008 Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.

Feb 11 2008 Motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.

I'd interpret these as follows:

Solicitor General of the US would like to argue. Neither side was willing to give him time (you only get 30 minutes in the usual argument, and he's taking positions that are not pleasing to either side), so he wants argument with his own time allocation. Divided argument means, I assume, that two people will argue for the SG.

Texas SG's motion is more interesting. They want the same (without divided argument). My guess is that the minute they saw the US AG's move they whipped this motion out. Normally, if an amicus wants to argue the Court's going to say it's on time from the party they're supporting. But with the SG asking for its own time, Texas has a shot at this motion.

Californio
02-14-2008, 2:31 PM
So does anyone know the political/legal background of the US Solicitor General and why he feels the need to try and torpedo this case? Is the Government Class that afraid of a Free People, and who pulls his strings?

simonov
02-14-2008, 3:33 PM
So does anyone know the political/legal background of the US Solicitor General and why he feels the need to try and torpedo this case? Is the Government Class that afraid of a Free People, and who pulls his strings?

Merely another example of the famously "pro gun rights" Bush Administration hard at work again on dismantling the Bill of Rights!

This week the US Senate got into the act as well!

Shotgun Man
02-14-2008, 5:12 PM
This week the US Senate got into the act as well!


Please don't make me search. A link would be helpful.

BillCA
02-15-2008, 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by Californio http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1001976#post1001976)
So does anyone know the political/legal background of the US Solicitor General and why he feels the need to try and torpedo this case? Is the Government Class that afraid of a Free People, and who pulls his strings?

Merely another example of the famously "pro gun rights" Bush Administration hard at work again on dismantling the Bill of Rights!

This week the US Senate got into the act as well!
Consise, but wrong.

As Solicitor General, it's his job to argue cases in SCOTUS whenever a federal law is challenged. The SG is supporting D.C. because the District is a federal enclave and subject to Federal oversight in addition to its own laws. The SG can put the full resources of the AG/DOJ behind his brief, make a token effort to uphold the challenged law or something in between. The SG's brief is "in between". I think it is actually detrimental to their case to admit an individual right, but then claim just this one of the BOR is a not afundamental right, so they can argue for some wishy-washy level of scrutiny that's never been defined.

As for the Texas AG - my understanding is that Gura, et al. was going to give up a little time for the Texas AG who is arguing in support of Heller. It's the only Amicus filer they've agreed to have time. And I think this was nailed down before the SG's brief was filed.

What is more noteworthy is that SCOTUS has reserved the entire day for this hearing - something that's rarely done - which leads me to believe that time limits will be expanded by the court itself, if it feels the need to keep the dialog going. I suspect that it will be a long and tiring day for attorneys on both sides. The audio recordings of the arguments and court questions could be very enlightening.

aileron
02-15-2008, 5:10 AM
Is it possible, based on how many amicus have been filed that the court itself will ask for an extension to properly review the data???? Considering the gravity of the what is at issue, and the volumes of data out there; to properly understand and determine the facts in the case, for truth in fact, it would be hoped they would seriously review it all thoroughly.

otteray
02-17-2008, 8:31 PM
I just finished reading the filing from the Civilian Markmanship Program (The CMP, formerly the DMC.)
One interesting thing; the rifle sales program, first developed in the early 1900s to make sure private citizens were trained in firearm use, was enacted by Congress!
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacretiredmilitary.pdf

hoffmang
02-17-2008, 8:46 PM
There will be no extensions on this case. Oral argument will occur as scheduled. The only drama between now and then is if the SG or the States get briefing time at oral arguments. There is a minuscule chance that supplemental briefing would be requested after oral arguments but I highly doubt that would happen.

-Gene

GuyW
02-18-2008, 12:16 AM
...Solicitor General....The SG can put the full resources of the AG/DOJ behind his brief, make a token effort to uphold the challenged law or something in between. The SG's brief is "in between". I think it is actually detrimental to their case to admit an individual right, but then claim just this one of the BOR is a not afundamental right, so they can argue for some wishy-washy level of scrutiny that's never been defined.

I believe that there is a lot of analysis, tactical thinking, and coordination that precedes the submission of briefs....probably on both sides (I think our side won this skirmish...)

I think that having some half-@#$ anti- arguments in an Amici brief may help us, because it sort of puts an issue out there, and then discredits the ideas by poor argument and support. Might even have been a pro-side tactic as to the SG brief...

CCWFacts
02-18-2008, 12:40 AM
My conclusion from reading of the anti- briefs (it was painful to look at them) is that their arguments come down to:

1. Expediency: they drum up inconclusive or flawed or irrelevant statistics to try to show how important gun control is. "So and so many people were murdered in DC with handguns, so we need the ban on handguns." That type of argument is an insult to our intelligence.

2. Tortured grammatical interpretations

3. Obscure, non-mainstream, and out-of-context historical evidence. If you have enough source material you can eventually find statements that you can use to back up almost anything.

None of that stuff is the kind of stuff that wins Supreme Court cases. I hope.

Ford8N
02-18-2008, 4:57 AM
My conclusion from reading of the anti- briefs (it was painful to look at them) is that their arguments come down to:

1. Expediency: they drum up inconclusive or flawed or irrelevant statistics to try to show how important gun control is. "So and so many people were murdered in DC with handguns, so we need the ban on handguns." That type of argument is an insult to our intelligence.

2. Tortured grammatical interpretations

3. Obscure, non-mainstream, and out-of-context historical evidence. If you have enough source material you can eventually find statements that you can use to back up almost anything.

None of that stuff is the kind of stuff that wins Supreme Court cases. I hope.

1) Any good lawyer would rip that to shreds
2) Any good lawyer would rip that to shreds
3) Any good lawyer would rip that to shreds

So what do they have as a basis for their argument? Control of the law abiding citizen it seems to me. Reminds me of the reasoning used by the Pigs in the book Animal Farm.

BillCA
02-19-2008, 12:35 AM
So what do they have as a basis for their argument? Control of the law abiding citizen it seems to me. Reminds me of the reasoning used by the Pigs in the book Animal Farm.

I think the D.C. position really boils down to;

Lot of our folks were getting killed so the Government just had to do something. So we decided the solution was to ban handguns and keep all others locked up rather than spend money to improve our police or work out a solution to the root problems.
We can ban handguns because the 2nd doesn't really apply to regular folks. Just members of the select militia (Nat'l Guard). And because we're not a state, we don't have even the select militia so part of the BoR (2A) doesn't apply here.
Even if it does apply, handguns aren't a "militia" gun anyhow. Even if they are, so what? We don't have any form of a militia because we're not a state.
Even if it does apply and the militia are ALL of our citizens, the laws should still stand because, like, we didn't ban all of them.As the Buckeye brief points out, the D.C. Metro P.D. is barely functional. Between incompetence, poor standards, political promotions & assignments and a lack of internal controls, the MPD's level of professionalism fluctuates between the Keystone cops on the low side and Barney Fife on the high side.

Opinion: If the ban is overturned, I suspect we may see a short-term upswing in shootings as criminals get a bit bolder and citizens start arming themselves. The true test will be to see what happens when a D.C. homeowner defends his/herself at their front door. Overzealous prosecution will probably be greeted with some serious backlash. Once the criminals get the idea that people are safe(r) in their homes they'll ratchet up street crimes.

If magic happens and the District starts doing a "shall issue" program (quit laughing), D.C. is one place that I fear the anti's threat of blood running in the streets might come true. Of course we would hope that the blood would be that of rapists, drug dealers, muggers, robbers and thieves.

But given that MPD is incompetent in basic policing functions, shall-issue would be a disaster in their hands. Recognizing Virginia permits would be a better first step.

yellowfin
02-19-2008, 12:58 AM
Are more crimes in DC committed against people in their homes or outside them? It always strikes me as silly how defense in the home is comparatively scarcely questioned by comparison to outside the home. Do they expect people to be agorophobes?

aileron
02-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Do they expect people to be agorophobes?

Minion's of the state.

FallingDown
02-19-2008, 11:27 AM
Can you put that on your business card? "Minion of the state"