Williams v. MD : will AG Kamila Harris file an Amicus Brief ....?

[Southwest Chuck]

I got to thinking.....assuming this case gets picked up by SCOTUS, if we'll see an Amicus in support of Defendants, filed by our AG, Kamila Harris? Our previous AG (now Governor) Jerry Brown sent an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, (surprisingly) in support of the petitioners in McDonald v Chicago.

Of course, her position would be completely different, in that she would have to write one in support of MD's permit system, to help preserve California's may issue system where instead of Good & Substantial as MD has it, it's Good Cause and Good Moral Character which in CA, a county Sheriff has un-bridled discretion in determining.

I'm also wondering if she can do this on her own (did Jerry?) or can JB as Governor, direct her to stand down on filing an amicus?

Anyone know?

[hoffmang]

1. The AG has a free hand.

2. I doubt she'll do much of anything on this. She might sign on to an anti-states brief (something Brown never did)

-Gene

[wash]

I wonder, if Kamala signs an anti amicus, could Gov. Brown sign a pro carry amicus?

He's still a lawyer and Governor is a pretty good title.

I doubt either will do anything but it might be neat to see a split there.

[yellowfin]

I doubt Harris has the intelligence or sophistication to even understand the situation.

[wildhawker]

I doubt Harris has the intelligence or sophistication to even understand the situation.

The people that work for her definitely do.

[Patrick-2]

Some states will file in opposition, many more will file in favor. Some will stay on the fence.

Please note that "Shall-Issue" at the state level does not imply "pro-rights". Some states want this question to remain the domain of their political subdivision. Once you confirm this a civil right you foreclose certain legislative and executive actions by the state. You take options from them. Not everyone likes that idea because <insert cynical reasons here>.

Also, like Heller and McDonald, you will see governors, congress and everyone else under the sun filing briefs. Yea. Lots of reading.

[Southwest Chuck]

...... you will see governors, congress and everyone else under the sun filing briefs. Yea. Lots of reading.

.......and the consensus will be ???

[Patrick-2]

Same as for McDonald. What else?

Lots of claims on 'in the home' and even more screaming that public safety requires gun controls in their jurisdictions without quite explaining how the people of their domain are going to be more likely (more bestial) than those of the shall-issue areas of this nation.

Nobody has quite called them out on that yet - that Maryland claims we need controls because certain "urbanized" populations will are less human than those of other states and their urban areas. The most insidious part of their argument, to me, has been calling out urban Baltimore and Prince Georges County for special concern. For those not familiar with either, "urban Baltimore" is heavily minority and Prince Georges County once held the distinction of being the most educated and affluent County in America for African Americans (now overtaken by some communities in Georgia).

So the argument stretches the demographic width of "poor and black" to "upper income and black".

Somehow the state didn't call out my 'hood'. And even if they did, they have not explained how any of us are somehow less human than our nearby neighbors in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

For all their talk of "social science solutions" to gun violence, I just once want to see them put into writing exactly how they expect Maryland people to be more dangerous than Virginia people - and frankly, why they felt the need to further identify minority communities as nadir's of that 'inhumanity' problem.

[bussda]

Ouch. This means the AG admits racist policies?

[ccmc]

Ouch. This means the AG admits racist policies?

Or an inconvenient truth.

[nicki]

Kamilla Harris

My gut tells me she may not file ANY BRIEF.

Kamilla Harris is not our friend, but people in her office are probably reading all of our briefs and many of our arguments against prohibitions on carrying guns are direct attacks on "Jim Crow Laws".

Why file a "loser brief". Briefs that lose at the Supreme court won't help her, if anything, they will spill over into other issues that she may really care about.

If we look at the number of briefs that were filed in both the Heller case and the MacDonald case, the numbers filed by the other side on MacDonald was lower than on "Heller".

We are going to see less and less briefs filed by the other side because who wants to be associated with a losing argument at the US Supreme court.

For Law Firms, having a record of submitting winning arguments helps your bottom line, having a record of losing arguments drives away clients.

Nicki

[Wherryj]

I doubt Harris has the intelligence or sophistication to even understand the situation.

I suspect that she does, but I doubt that she has the work ethic to do something "optional" like writing a brief for something that doesn't directly affect her job. It just sounds like too much extra "work"...