Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Law Enforcement Groups, Brady Center file SCOTUS Brief.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    News Release Law Enforcement Groups, Brady Center
    Urge Supreme Court To Reverse
    Distorted Reading Of Second Amendment
    For Immediate Release:
    01-14-2008

    Contact Communications:
    (202) 289-7319

    Washington, D.C. – Nine leading national law enforcement groups joined the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in filing a “friend of the court” brief urging the United States Supreme Court to reverse a federal appeals court ruling striking down a District of Columbia gun law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

    “We urge the Supreme Court to listen to the voice of those who put their lives on the line every day to protect communities from gun violence,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke. “The law enforcement community has argued, clearly and forcefully, for allowing the life-and-death issues raised by gun violence to be decided by the elected representatives of the people, without the interference of courts anxious to distort the Second Amendment’s meaning.”

    The brief, filed in District of Columbia v. Heller, argues that the lower court ruling, if affirmed, would grant courts unprecedented authority to nullify the decisions of elected officials to adopt measures they believe are needed to protect their communities from gun violence.

    Nine national law enforcement groups, representing thousands of police executives and rank-and-file officers, have joined the brief, which points to the long history of local, state and national laws to reduce the danger of gun violence, “with demonstrable public safety benefits.” For example, the brief cites the success of Brady Law background checks, which have prevented more than 1.4 million felons and other legally prohibited buyers from purchasing guns, contributing to a sharp national drop in gun crimes and homicides following the enactment of the statute in 1993. According to the brief, “this Court should not grant courts the unprecedented power to second-guess legislative decisions on the control of deadly weaponry.”

    The groups joining the Brady Center brief include the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the National Black Police Association; the School Safety Advocacy Council; and the Police Executive Research Forum.

    The brief also points out that the United States Supreme Court, in a 1939 precedent, had ruled that the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the Second Amendment “must be interpreted and applied” in accord with its expressed purpose to ensure the effectiveness of state-regulated militias. The March 2007 ruling by a 2-1 majority in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by finding that the right guaranteed is not limited to service in a state militia, defies this precedent and improperly nullifies the militia language of the Amendment and the intent of the Framers, according to the brief.
    Read the brief here.

    The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was the first in history by a federal appeals court to strike down a gun law as a violation of the Second Amendment. The appeals court invalidated the District’s strict handgun law, enacted by a unanimous D.C. Council in 1976. The case is expected to be argued in March and decided in June.
    The Brady Center’s Legal Action Project is the nation’s leading defender of gun laws in court, appearing in over twenty-five cases defending such laws against attack by the gun lobby and criminal defendants. The Center has published a 60-page on-line critique of the D.C. Circuit ruling, entitled Second Amendment Fantasy and appearing at http://www.bradycenter.org. and http://www.gunlawsuits.org. The brief was written by Legal Action Project lawyers and the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.
    # # #
    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in America, through education, research, and legal advocacy. The programs of the Brady Center complement the legislative and grassroots mobilization of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Do these 'friend of the court' briefs actually count for anything?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Is this all they got???

    They want to argue about militia -The arguments are very flawed.

    Brady: Shays Rebellion , Oklahoma City – Unorganized militia purpose is insurrectionist- Answer -1. Clear intent of the Militia Act 2. Lexington and Concord, Monroe, N.C., L.A. Riots - sometimes an unorganized militia is a good thing!
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I'm getting worried. Very worried. We are potentially a court ruling and a democrat president and congress away from becoming subjects.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735

    Post imported post

    We are subjects, you just have not figured it out yet.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    The bottom line is that every time that they try to pass something, it is never confiscatory. Everything is grandfathered in because they know that if they were to try to take our weapons from us, they would have Waco on their hands all over the United States and that would be the end of our country as we know it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    The bottom line is that every time that they try to pass something, it is never confiscatory. Everything is grandfathered in because they know that if they were to try to take our weapons from us, they would have Waco on their hands all over the United States and that would be the end of our country as we know it.
    A good number of gun owners with whom I've spoken have admitted that a gun confiscation is the point at which they'd revolt... not that it counts for anything, but adds a little credibility to that theory.

    On the other hand, without giving public support to either side, I can see this happening within the next few decades. With a convergence of the War on Nouns, "liberal" gun haters, and a much larger portion of the population becoming aware of their rights, it's fairly foreseeable, IMO. But I'll avoid going OT with that discussion...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    The bottom line is that every time that they try to pass something, it is never confiscatory. Everything is grandfathered in because they know that if they were to try to take our weapons from us, they would have Waco on their hands all over the United States and that would be the end of our country as we know it.
    A good number of gun owners with whom I've spoken have admitted that a gun confiscation is the point at which they'd revolt... not that it counts for anything, but adds a little credibility to that theory.

    On the other hand, without giving public support to either side, I can see this happening within the next few decades. With a convergence of the War on Nouns, "liberal" gun haters, and a much larger portion of the population becoming aware of their rights, it's fairly foreseeable, IMO. But I'll avoid going OT with that discussion...
    You can see what happening in the next few decades? A revolt?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    The brief, filed in District of Columbia v. Heller, argues that the lower court ruling, if affirmed, would grant courts unprecedented authority to nullify the decisions of elected officials to adopt measures they believe are needed to protect their communities from gun violence.
    I think what they meant to do is:
    The brief, filed in District of Columbia v. Heller, argues that the lower court ruling, if affirmed, would grant courts unprecedented authority to nullify the unconsitutional acts of elected officials to adopt measures that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens protected by the Constitution.

    Are these 9 law enforcement agencies the same ones that always predict blood flowing in the streets every time citizens try pass concealed carry or castle doctrine laws somewhere - assertions that have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be 100% wrong yet are trotted out still? I support LEOs but things like this make it very difficult to do so when their political organizations are complicit in attempting to strip me and every other American citizen for perpetuity of our constitutionally protected rights.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •