D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A question ... can any Tom, Dick or Harry with a wordprocessor file an Amicus brief, or must they be approved by the group they support.

i.e. did DOJ have to check with DC before filing a brief?

I was just wondering if there were groups out there that might file a kind of "poison pill" brief like the AHSA? Pretending to be a friend of Heller but actually undermining the whole case? (hey -- kind of sounds like the DOJ brief!).

EDIT: WOW! Once again my post is at the top of a new page. Welcome to page 17.
 
Followup to Antipitas

Poeple,

Baby steps.

To have any hope of overturning 922(o) and NFA, etc., I think people are missing two very important points.

One, the USSC has never overturned any ban on 2A. There are several aspects of this case that make it critical to limit the issue to individual right to keep and bear arms!

Two, if Heller is successful that there is also the 07-335 about standing to bring action.

If Alan Gura is successful in Heller, he will be successful in 07-335.

This will make it easier to pursue 14A incorporation. If successful with 14A, then NFA 1986 922(o) will fall, and so will WA and CA state laws.

I agree with Alan Gura, the arms means edge weapons, clubs, whips, pistols, rifles and shotguns. In that arms mean to hold by hand.

I would like to go on the record to state munitions are not arms (grenades and the like are explosives, not arms!)

Machine-guns and automatic weapons are not the same thing, and to be accurate there are really three types of automatic weapons.

1) Machine guns -- sustained automatic fire, belt or large magazine fed
2) Automatic Rifles (M16, M4 service rifle), G1, G3, FN Fal, BAR, M14, M2
3) Sub Machine Guns (SMG) - UZI, H&K MP5, etc.

The third type is going to be most problematic for the BATFE, politicians etc.
 
No big deal ... but just one little thing:

This will make it easier to pursue 14A incorporation. If successful with 14A, then NFA 1986 922(o) will fall, and so will WA and CA state laws.
Click to expand...

NFA 1986, 1968 law, etc. are all Federal laws, so no incorporation into the 14th is required. Incorporation is only required to fight City of Chicago laws, NJ laws, etc.

I don't think we'll see BATF and machine gun registration going away. and I'm fine with that personally, but I would like to see new machine guns/submachine guns/true assault rifles become cheaper when new ones are allowed to be sold.
 
What Gura is saying here (and leaving the door open for a later argument) is that part of the test is... would a civilian find a lawful purpose in owning this arm if there were no laws prohibiting it's possession or use?
Click to expand...

What was the lawful civilian purpose for the cannons which sparked the battles at Lexington and Concord?

I don't like this "civilian purpose" test. It looks a lot like a "sporting use" test to me, in effect if not style. It means no military hardware in civilian hands, in effect. That's the whole ball of wax, folks, and it may become even more significant as military weapons advance (and civilian ones are not allowed to advance).
 
I would like to go on the record to state munitions are not arms (grenades and the like are explosives, not arms!)

Machine-guns and automatic weapons are not the same thing, and to be accurate there are really three types of automatic weapons.
Click to expand...
I think we're getting a little far afield here. The above isn't germane to the Heller case, as Gura pointed out in the brief.

In Heller the issue is a total prohibition on the possession of handguns, revolvers and semi-automatics; and a prohibition on functional rifles and shotguns.

We'll deal with the definition of the meaning of the term "arms" beyond the scope of the Heller case on another day. It has been argued extensively in regular threads for those that'd like to view that.
 
BillCA said:
Looking closer, I think we'd have a harder time finding a legitimate "lawful purpose" for such things as M203 grenade launchers, anti-tank rockets, grenades, mines and other similar devices.
Click to expand...

Just thinking, the ranchers/landowners on the border facing incursions/attacks from over the border by drug/arms/illegal invader runners and people "dressed as Mexican army units" guarding them might find some of these items quite useful for self defense. :rolleyes:
 
WOW. Quite a well written, well documented assault upon the police and 911 in D.C. My guess, however, is that it's about right. DC is not a nice place, and the cops aren't any crazier about working there than anybody else. I'll be the upscale areas get some pretty good response times,though.

Still ... is this really a positive? Is this going to help? And for this to be submitted, did the Heller lawyers have to approve it or did they just do it strictly independently? (getting back to my previous unanswered question).
 
Last edited:
Garand,

It is my understanding that there is a limit on the number of amicus briefs which can be submitted, and they must be approved by the party they are supporting. Sorry, no source, just heard it around the net, so I could be completely wrong.
 
There was a meeting with both sides of this case, just before cert was granted. At that meeting, it was mandated that no more than 20 amici would be permitted to file (the Justices knew full well that many more than that wanted to file - on both sides.).

The Courts own rules are that any amici must notify both sides and have their agreement. I suspect that at that pre-cert meeting, both sides agreed to let each other have whomever they wanted.

The rumor on Heller's side is that Alan Gura & Co. handpicked whom they wanted and gave them specific "ideas" as to what they were to write about... But that's just rumor... :rolleyes:

I liked the Buckeye/Investigators brief. It went straight to the heart of several things that were brought out in the District Court, but were ignored by both that Court and the City.

Here's some more for you:


Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent (link currently broken)

Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent

Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent

Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent

That makes 8. Twelve more to go....
 
As an NRA supporter, I did make an attempt to read through the NRA amicus. It looked pretty well done to me, but honestly kind of vanilla and not as inspired as the heller Brief. Just matter of fact ... but really, that's all it should have to be:

NRA Brief

Given how often we discuss the legitimacy of the NRA as the foremost gun rights organization in America, anybody with greater knowledge than me want to do an analysis?

In terms of the number of amici allowed ... on Cam and Country they said they were expecting 35 - 70 pro-gun amici for Heller before posting closes out. If there is a limit to 20 ... sounds like they need some better legal advisors. I did notice there were a straight 20 for DC, and I'm sure they could have found many more groups to file for them.

Another note ... I heard that the congressional amici passed around got a majority of both senators (57) and house members (250) to sign. That includes 68 House Demos, and 9 Demo Senators. Sounds like it should carry some weight if it's well written at all, since there were only 18 who supported the ban. Hopefully they're is well written and well inspired.

All filings

I guess Dave Hardy of Arms and the Law is going to file one. They way he talked about it sounds like he has some rock solid historical evidence to contribute.
 
oldphart said:
Buckeye Firearms probably won't find many friends on the MPD after this gets out!
Click to expand...

+1 there! The Buckeye (et al.) brief shreds the DC metro PD and the mayor's office.

After reading the brief and considering only a few minutes, I came to the conclusion it could have been written better. In fact, it could almost be viewed as a microcosm of the American revolution.

-Citizens disarmed by the government
-Citizens denied basic protection
-Corrupt officials protecting each other
-Incompetent officials
-No redress for citizens wronged or injured by MPD misfeasance.
-A long history of abuses, neglect and retaliation against citizens
-Courts failing find liability for MPD or DC promotes the status quo.
-Indifference to the plight & suffering of its people.

The brief suggested the choice before SCOTUS - either revise the standard that says the police duty is not protection but to deter crimes and to investigate and arrest after crimes are committed -or- find that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to protect one's self and others with firearms.

Someone well skilled in writing could, I think, re-write this brief in the prose of the Declaration of Independence such that the point is ...when government fails to even provide basic protection to its people, it is the right and natural course that The People take up their own arms to restore peace and order to their cities themselves, and no order or law written by government that deprives them of this right is valid under the Constitution.
 
With the ABA link to the Disabled Vets amicus brief broken, I've fallen back to scotusblog, which also has all the briefs available for download... Oops! That link is incomplete/broken also.

Given that Gura & Co. don't immediately post the briefs, you may need to look at the ABA site or the scotusblog site for what's been filed as it is filed. The DCGunCase site seems to wait a while before they post them - If you've noticed, the site didn't post any of the amici briefs until last evening.

All briefs must be filed by 4pm eastern time, Monday the 11th... If I'm counting correctly.

publius42 said:
I'm getting waay behind here.
Click to expand...
Now you know how I felt when all 20 of the petitioners amici filed on the same day! :eek:

As to the Congress for the Respondents brief, this is a good sign. As stated, 18 members of Congress filed in favor of the petitioner. Since over half the Congress appears to support the respondent, this gives a clear signal to the Justices that they can decide for Heller without fearing political fallout. That is good for our side.

Add to this signal, that 30 (perhaps more, but 30 as far as I am aware) States will file for the respondent. Another overwhelmingly clear signal to the Court.

The NRA brief does 2 things. It debunks the brief by Professors Winkler and Chemerinsky and it appears to be addressed to Justice Breyer (with all the references to [gun ownership for self-defense purposes] being a right of all American citizens rooted in democratic self-government).

As noted earlier, all these briefs are a well coordinated attack on all the briefs for the petitioners.

I also agree with several of the legal commentators. The Heller brief is likely to be used in many, if not most, ConLaw courses from this date forward. It is simply a brilliant piece of writing!
 
I forced my way through the Heller brief and found it to be amazing. I read some parts of the DC brief and found it to be wandering and not very well based on research (it's hard to write up a fact based document with a view not supported by the majority of the facts).

I've also read through some other posts and information, and seen where a majority of both states and congressmen are going to support Heller. The DOJ is a fly in the ointment but I guess there's nothing to do about that.

Anyway ... I'm seeing an avalanche of well researched and excellent pro-Heller writing and much more slim pickings from the DC side. I'm starting to feel much more optimistic before that a meaningful ruling might be made.

I think the biggest thing is that whatever the ruling is on "tests" of new laws, if the 2nd amendment is legislated as an individual right and the ban is overthrown, the whole case is a big plus -- it continues to give us the constitution to stand behind and the constitution for our pro-gun politicans to use as cover when attacked for their views.

Versus a movement destroying negative if the 2nd amendment gets abandoned as a National Guard referencing dead-letter.

1 month and 10 days and we'll have a better idea after hearing the questions asked at the oral arguments.

Amazing how little coverage this gets in the national media, being as a widely perceived liberty/right is under debate and may be removed forever.
 
Bill, this kinda touches on what you are talking about. It was written a couple of thousand years ago by Cicero and is perfectly germane even today.

Cicero

What is the meaning of our retinues, what of our swords? Surely it would never be permitted to us to have them if we might never use them. This, therefore, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us- which we have not learned, or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in and imbibed from nature herself; a law which we were not taught, but to which we were made- which we were not trained in, but which is ingrained in us- namely, that if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honorable. For laws are silent when arms are raised, and do not expect themselves to be waited for, when he who waits will have to suffer an undeserved penalty before he can exact a merited punishment.
 
The Pink Pistols have filed their brief.

I was pretty sure of the argument they would make. Now they have filed and it is not a disappointment. The basic argument is that the majority may not withold the fundamental rights [of self-protection] from any minority.

Gura has picked really well in whom he wants to defend the 2A.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top