Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: McDonald v Chicago- A Majority of CA Distrtict Attorneys support 2nd Amendment in Supreme Court Case

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/...amendment.html



    link to brief


    Friday, November 20, 2009

    Today, 34 California District Attorneys and 8 Nevada District Attorneys joined a consortium of other “friends of the court” to file an “amicus” brief in the United States Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) The briefasks the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution stops state and local governments from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, just as the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment stops the federal government from infringing on that right. The brief is posted here at http://www.calgunlaws.com.Click read more to get to the brief. “This is an unprecedented brief filed by an unprecedented collaboration of prosecutors, police, and private citizens groups from throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona,” said civil rights attorney Chuck Michel, who represents the amicus parties on the brief. “We are thrilled to be representing these interests in urging the Supreme Court to breathe life into the Second Amendment by making it clear that the Second Amendment prohibits state and local governments from infringing on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

    The California District Attorneys who joined the brief are: Will Richmond (Alpine), Todd Reibe (Amador), Michael Ramsey (Butte), John Poyner (Colusa), Michael D. Reise (Del Norte), Vern Pierson (El Dorado), Elizabeth A. Egan (Fresno), Robert Holzapfel (Glenn), Edward Jagels (Kern), Ron Calhoun (Kings), Gilbert Otero (Imperial), Michael R. Keitz (Madera), Robert H. Brown (Mariposa), Meredith Lintott (Mendocino), Larry Morse (Merced), Gary Woolverton (Modoc), George Booth (Mono), Tony Rackauckas (Orange), Brad Fenocchio (Placer), Candice Hooper (San Benito), Michael Ramos (San Bernardino), Bonnie M. Dumanis (San Diego), James Willett (San Joaquin), Christie Stanley (Santa Barbara), Gerald C. Benito (Shasta County), Larry Allen (Sierra), J. Kirk Andrus (Siskiyou), David W. Paulson (Solano), Carl V. Adams (Sutter), Greg Cohen (Tehama), Michael Harper (Trinity), Phil Cline (Tulare), Gregory Totten (Ventura), and Jeff Reisig (Yolo).

    The Nevada District Attorneys who joined the brief are: Arthur E. Mallory (Churchill), Todd Leventhal (Esmerelda), Russell D. Smith (Humboldt), Hy Forgeron (Lander), Robert Auer (Lyon), Cheri Emm-Smith (Mineral), Jim Shirley (Pershing), and Richard Gammick (Washoe).

    The District Attorneys are joined by law enforcement groups and sheriffs, including the Long Beach Police Officers Association, San Francisco Veterans Police Officers Association, Graham County, Arizona Former Sheriff Richard Mack, Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, and Tehama County, California Sheriff Clay D. Parker. Citizen groups that joined the brief included California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Bloomfield Press.

    District Attorney Ed Jagels deserves special recognition for his assistance in spearheading this effort. He has been Kern County’s top prosecutor since 1983, and will be retiring next year.
    District Attorney Jagels was instrumental in rallying the prosecutors to join this brief, as well as recruiting District Attorneys from throughout California to sign on as “friends of the court” in a significant amicus brief filed on behalf of the individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. For his efforts he was recognized as the California Rifle & Pistol Association’s Law Enforcement Officer of the Year in 2009.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Big surprise, the Stanislaus County DA isn't on there...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Nor are the DAs from San Francisco, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, and Alameda. I was really pulling for Alameda to be on there. I guess that whole Nordyke thing might have turned them off.

    It's really awesome that we have DAs in our state that have good enough reading comprehension skills to understand the 27 words in the second amendment. And people say we have horrible schools! I'm sure the charges that are brought forth in the non-included counties are written in crayon on construction paper, arguments are given in baby babble, and charges are brought against anybody who makes the DA want to cry.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I would also add that just because a DA is on the list doesn't mean they are true 2A supports.

    For example, Sherriff Benito of Shasta County believes it is proper for him to prohibit a CCW holder from open carrying. One member here had his CCW permission slip revoked when he didn't agree to cease his open carry practices.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're on our side on this issue... but the reality is that some of the men/women on that list are tyrants who support a VERY limited right.

    Perhaps a few even misunderstood "bear arms"...


    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Read this a few nights ago in the Federalist Papers, #84. The text discusses the need for a bill of rights. Hamilton argues that including a bill of rights into the proposed constitution could infer that the federal government had powers beyond what were expressly granted. Obviously, his worries have proven to be correct since more and more laws are enacted under the "General Welfare" or "Necessary and Proper" clause.

    It's by Hamilton, who I despise, but apparently he wasn't a total idiot on the day he wrote this:

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    For example, Sherriff Benito of Shasta County believes it is proper for him to prohibit a CCW holder from open carrying. One member here had his CCW permission slip revoked when he didn't agree to cease his open carry practices.

    Correction of fact; Sherriff Bosenko is the Sherriff of Shasta County. Jerry Benito is Shasta County's District Attorney.

    The rest of your post is completely true. Sherriff Bosenkoprofesses to be pro-gun, a twenty plus year member of the NRA, and his office is reputed to be nearly 'shall issue'. If he genuinelyupholdsthe right to keep and bear arms, he wouldnt have any trouble with exposed carry, regardless of the issuance of a license to conceal. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with open carry.)

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    If he genuinelyupholdsthe right to keep and bear arms, he wouldnt have any trouble with exposed carry, regardless of the issuance of a license to conceal. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with open carry.)
    I disagree with your assertion. CCW and Open Carry are coupled together quite tightly here in CA as licenses issued per PC 12050 are the primary exemption for ordinary citizens from PCs 171b, 626.9 and 12031.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Holy crapballs, I am friggin excited!

    I can't wait to see the discussion on Calguns!

Posting Permissions

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