Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Pro-gun DC v. Heller briefs due.

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/pa.../07-0290bs.pdf

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...esp_merits.pdf

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
    The Second Amendment plainly protects “the
    right of the people”—an individual right—“to keep
    and bear arms.”
    However else Petitioners might regulate the
    possession and use of arms, their complete ban on the
    home possession of all functional firearms, and their
    prohibition against home possession and movement of
    handguns, are unconstitutional.
    The Amendment’s structure and etymology are
    not overly mysterious. The first clause, referencing
    the importance of “[a] well regulated Militia,” provides
    a non-exclusive yet perfectly sensible justification
    for securing the people’s right to keep and bear
    arms. In any event, the Second Amendment’s preamble
    cannot limit, transform, or negate its operative
    rights-securing text.
    3
    The Second Amendment was engendered by the
    Framers’ bitter experience with the King’s disarmament
    of the population. That disarmament was
    especially pernicious to the colonists, who fervently
    believed they possessed an individual right to arms.
    In resisting British tyranny, the militia were not
    directed by the government officials they sought to
    overthrow, but certainly depended on the citizenry’s
    familiarity with, and private possession of, firearms.
    The Second Amendment’s text thus reflects two
    related, non-exclusive concerns: it confirms the people’s
    right to arms and explains that the right is
    necessary for free people to guarantee their security
    by acting as militia.
    The Second Amendment’s drafting and ratification
    history demonstrates it was designed to secure
    individual rights, consistent with the demands of the
    Anti-Federalists, whom the Bill of Rights was intended
    to mollify. Petitioners’ militia theory was
    specifically addressed—and rejected—by the Framers,
    and that rejection is confirmed by centuries of
    precedent. Precedent likewise confirms the individual
    nature of Second Amendment rights.
    Under this Court’s precedent, the arms whose
    individual possession is protected by the Second
    Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the kind in
    common use, such that civilians would be expected to
    have them for ordinary purposes, and (2) would have
    military utility in time of need. A weapon that satisfies
    only one of these requirements would not be
    4
    protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns
    indisputably satisfy both requirements.
    Petitioners concede that a functional firearms
    ban would be inconsistent with an individual right to
    arms. The dispute surrounding D.C. Code section 7-
    2507.02 thus merely concerns statutory interpretation.
    The D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of this section’s
    language is correct.
    Although this case does not call upon the Court
    to determine the standard of review applicable to
    regulations of Second Amendment rights, Respondent
    observes that the right to arms protects two of the
    most fundamental rights—the defense of one’s life
    inside one’s home, and the defense of society against
    tyrannical usurpation of authority. Petitioners’ casual
    use of social science sharply underscores the importance
    of securing Second Amendment rights with a
    meaningful standard of review.
    Finally, Petitioners’ contention that the Second
    Amendment is not binding law within the Nation’s
    capital is spurious.

    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ.../march08.shtml collection of briefs, petitioner's(19) and respondent's(1).

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

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

    Post imported post

    The real victory for the 2A will be if the Supreme Court applies a strict scrutiny standard of review.


    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

  4. #4

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

    Post imported post

    Comments on amici briefs - a bit more insightful than here on OCDO

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncateg...case/#comments

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Congress of Racial Equality in support of respondent!

    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...alEquality.pdf

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    http://armsandthelaw.com/

    They also have a lot of good blogs on the brief.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Now eight respondent's briefs and 20-ish petitioner's briefs.

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

    Post imported post

    The BFA brief is particularly damning of the DC LEA.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Walter E. Williams is an amicus signatory of the 'Distinguished Scholdars' brief. Lots of good reasoning and reading.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    HEAR YE, HEAR YE



    Let it be known that the case of



    District of Columbia v. Heller



    Docket Number 07-290 is to be commenced with oral arguments:



    Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 10 a.m.





    So it is written, so it shall be. =oP




    MAY GOD HELP US ALL IF D.C WINS

Posting Permissions

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