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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Click to expand...