Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Pleadings: Parker [Heller] v. District of Columbia, et al. Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,731

    Post imported post

    Janet Reno's brief seem a little shaky to me.:celebrate

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    The very interesting brief is the one from the states that claims that the 2A does not apply to them. ... Does the 14thA incorporate the 2nd?
    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 inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    The very interesting brief is the one from the states that claims that the 2A does not apply to them. ... Does the 14thA incorporate the 2nd?
    Not yet. Thats a big question that hasn't been answered yet. Its never been addressed in that light.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    The very interesting brief is the one from the states that claims that the 2A does not apply to them. ... Does the 14thA incorporate the 2nd?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...9#Amendment_II

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Am I correct in saying that there were far more amicus briefs in favor of keeping the DC law than opposed?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No. The pro-gun briefs are not due for some time yet, like a month as I understand it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    No. The pro-gun briefs are not due for some time yet, like a month as I understand it.
    Oh, thank God. I didn't know that there was an order to the filing of these briefs. I was gonna say, I thought there were a hell of a lot more pro gun people than anti.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    No. The pro-gun briefs are not due for some time yet, like a month as I understand it.
    Oh, thank God. I didn't know that there was an order to the filing of these briefs. I was gonna say, I thought there were a hell of a lot more pro gun people than anti.
    Yeah, me too. That worried me. Thanks, Doug.

    I'm still fuming about the DOJ brief.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Rupert, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Just a recap, for those that aren't familiar with how the Court does things.

    Just before the Court annouced its grant of cert, the opposing attorneys were called in to a special meeting with some of the Justices. It was agreed that there would be lots of organizations that would want to file briefs in this matter. It was also agreed that a limit of 20 amici (friends) for each side (this was posted at scotusblog for a few hours, then pulled).

    It appears that D.C. took all comers. I say this, because none of the amicus briefs actually deal with the question as posed by the Court. They mostly continue to hammer away at the "collective" rights theories.

    It is now Gura and Levy's turn to submit their answering brief (due on Feb. 4th). It is also rumored that they will not only pick and chose who to allow to file a brief, but what their content will be (what arguments they may make). These are due within 7 days after the responding brief is filed.

    Sources close to the NRA reveal that they are having reservations in filing. It is not often that the NRA is told what they can say and what not to say. They may balk at this. shrug. That is the power that Gura and Levy are wielding. They are basicly saying that if you want to file an amicus brief in this case, you will play by our rules or you will not play at all.

    Anyway, D.C. will have one more chance to submit an answering brief, which would be due within 25 days of Hellers brief (Feb. 29th).

    Oral arguments will be scheduled after that (usually within 2 weeks, unless that calendar month is already filled). According to the Supreme Court Calendar, Orals (for March) will be held on the 17th, 18th, 19th, 24th, 25th or 26th of March. The decision will most likely be published in late June.

    So that's the time frame of what is expected to happen.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    from the brief filed by the pediatrician's union

    aCCORDINGLY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE sECOND

    aMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS FOR

    PRIVATE PURPOSES, FOR THE REASONS DESCRIBED BELOW, AND

    BASED ON THEIR COLLECTIVE INTEREST IN PREVENTING HANDGUN

    INJURIES TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH NATIONWIDE, aaP, sam,

    ¢dF, fiaGff, AND ffia! RESPECTFULLY URGE THE ¢OURT TO

    REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ¢OURT OF aPPEALS FOR THE

    dISTRICT OF ¢OLUMBIA ¢IRCUIT.
    Let me translate.

    We admit it is a right respected by the constitution but we want the court to decide its ok to eleiminate that right.


Posting Permissions

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