Richards (Carry): Final reply brief filed

[hoffmang]

Today, Alan Gura, SAF, and CGF filed the final reply brief in Richards v. Prieto. The next step will either be a summary reversal or oral argument in the next few months.

-Gene

[HowardW56]

Damm. Why couldn't you have posted this 2 hours ago, while I was at a computer. Now I'll have to wait until I get back home.

[wjc]

Thanks, Gene!

[morfeeis]

would be nice if it all happened tomorrow.

Thanks for the work guys

[wildhawker]

5 Defendants failed to comprehend that Plaintiffs indeed pursue
their equal protection arguments on appeal. Appellees’ Br. 4 n. 1;
contra Appellants’ Br. 13, 52-58.

-Brandon

[curtisfong]

Undaunted by the Constitution’s plain text, Defendants’ circular
syllogism is: (1) carrying handguns is a social evil (“the carrying of
firearms in public negatively implicates other social issues and
portends societal ills unlike firearms in the home,” Brady Br. 23), (2)
denying licenses to carry handguns eliminates the carrying of
handguns (at least by law-abiding people), (3) therefore, presuming
that handguns cannot be carried is justified. After all, as Defendants
confidently assure, “in modern society, the average citizen’s need to
instantly respond with deadly force in public places is nil.” Appellees’
Br. 5. This is not constitutional analysis. It is the imposition of
Defendants’ personal policy preferences.

Were courts able to affirm any governmental decision based upon
social science or policy assessments, the Constitution would be a dead letter.

Pure awesome. Thank you Mr. Gura et al

[OleCuss]

Thank you. I enjoyed that!

I was briefly taken aback when I read a particular sentence on page 7. I think that it makes it pretty clear that certain organizations are not willing to maintain the fiction that UOC is a 2A-protected right. Not sure I really agree with the statement precisely as written, however, since I consider it to be protected under the 1A - but the statement is in a brief from 2A litigators in a 2A case so I think there is no violence done to the 1A argument.

[hoffmang]

Thank you. I enjoyed that!

I was briefly taken aback when I read a particular sentence on page 7. I think that it makes it pretty clear that certain organizations are not willing to maintain the fiction that UOC is a 2A-protected right. Not sure I really agree with the statement precisely as written, however, since I consider it to be protected under the 1A - but the statement is in a brief from 2A litigators in a 2A case so I think there is no violence done to the 1A argument.

It's not clear that UOC is 2A activity. LOC is 2A activity. UOC is probably 1A activity where LOC is prohibited however. The 2A protects functional firearms.

-Gene

[dantodd]

"a largely unserious brief" I can't wait until Gura starts writing opinions.

ETA: footnote on 12 is epic "That is not to say that Defendant''s reliance on these opinions is unpersuasive, just that such reliance is not persuasive in the manner Defendants intended."

[mosinnagantm9130]

[OleCuss]

It's not clear that UOC is 2A activity. LOC is 2A activity. UOC is probably 1A activity where LOC is prohibited however. The 2A protects functional firearms.

-Gene

I'd fully agree.

You may not agree with me, but I think that it is necessary to put a little distance between the mainstream pursuing our RKBA and the UOC demonstrators who are IMHO pursuing a 1A right and damaging our pursuit of our RKBA (no matter how pure their intentions may be).

So I'm fairly happy with taking what we've been given (a fairly clear course to Shall Issue Carry Licensure) and leverage things to where we can carry both concealed and LOC.

And so far as I know this is not precisely CGF policy although it may not be too far off. Probably better if you not comment on how close or far off I might be.

[Super Spy]

Good read....I hope this has the outcome we desire. If not SCOTUS here we come.

[Maestro Pistolero]

It's not clear that UOC is 2A activity. LOC is 2A activity. UOC is probably 1A activity where LOC is prohibited however. The 2A protects functional firearms.

-Gene

I have never heard a good argument for this assertion. How does removing the rounds from a gun that's under 2A protection suddenly remove it from that protection?

Assuming, arguendo, that LOC turns out to be a protected form of bear: What if I have several guns in my possession? Are they all required to be loaded in order for each one to be protected by the second amendment?

Assuming, again arguendo, that licensed carry is the only means to bear: Could I not, in a misguided abundance of caution, unload my legally concealed firearm and still be within the law?

Finally: Even if the absurd notion that the 2A applies only in the home were correct, would that not include unloaded guns?

Sorry, someone needs to connect the dots for me on this one.

[Dreaded Claymore]

Where can I find the defendants' briefs that he keeps referencing? He makes them sound really funny, and I want to read them. I suppose it might be possible to bring up Procrustes in a legal brief without looking like a moron, but I don't know how on Earth they could do it with Aphrodite!

(Procrustes was a mythical Greek bad guy, by the way. He lived by a road, and would offer travelers shelter for the night. He had a bed that he would compel his guests to sleep in. The thing is, any prospective guest had to fit his bed exactly before they could sleep in it, and if they didn't fit, he would make them fit, by chopping off their feet if they were too tall for the bed, or stretching them out if they were too short, for example.)

[Jason P]

Fortunately, in guaranteeing a fundamental right to bear arms, the Constitution bars this practice. Reversal is mandatory.

Damn! Almost makes me think we can get LTC by spring