D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Mike40-11
- Start date
- Status
MeekAndMild
New member
Antipitas, my reading of the PP brief makes their argument a little bit more complex than your synopsis.
This is their introduction:
But look at this:
See what I mean? They are tying it directly into the sort of discrimination the more liberal members of the legal establishment have been fighting against for 40 years.
This is their introduction:
But look at this:
See what I mean? They are tying it directly into the sort of discrimination the more liberal members of the legal establishment have been fighting against for 40 years.
Garand Illusion wrote, the following excerpted from his post:
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.
-------------------------
Given the position of "national media" regarding virtually anything having to do with firearms, is national media's lack of mention of Heller really all that much of a surprise.
In the following, I could be entirely wrong but, if it somehow turned out that the USSC were to rule that aside from the D.C. ban being unconstitutional, as well as being dumb, that the 1986 Machinegun Ban was also unconstitutional, as was the GCA'68 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, feel free to add to this short listing any additional state, city or federal gun laws you might find objectionable, that "national media" might possibly take note on page 77, in a squib occupying perhaps a single column inch. The foregoing is perhaps an overstatement, but even granting that possibility, the degree of overstatement might be surprisingly small.
The foregoing is NOT intended as criticism of Garand Illusion's comments.
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.
-------------------------
Given the position of "national media" regarding virtually anything having to do with firearms, is national media's lack of mention of Heller really all that much of a surprise.
In the following, I could be entirely wrong but, if it somehow turned out that the USSC were to rule that aside from the D.C. ban being unconstitutional, as well as being dumb, that the 1986 Machinegun Ban was also unconstitutional, as was the GCA'68 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, feel free to add to this short listing any additional state, city or federal gun laws you might find objectionable, that "national media" might possibly take note on page 77, in a squib occupying perhaps a single column inch. The foregoing is perhaps an overstatement, but even granting that possibility, the degree of overstatement might be surprisingly small.
The foregoing is NOT intended as criticism of Garand Illusion's comments.
MeekAndMild, it was a one liner... Hardly qualifies as a "synopsis."
Besides, I don't have a need to "hog the show," so to speak. BillCA is doing a good job; you yourself just presented a fair take on the Pink Pistols (though, arguably, there is more to it).
wolfmann, I don't know if this has anything to do with what you heard, but... The Members of the US Senate amicus brief was signed by 55 Senators, 250 Representatives and Dick Cheney as the President of the Senate. Cheney did not have to do this. He did, and that puts him at odds with Bush and the DOJ.
Here's the list of briefs for the Respondents:
Any bets that this is the limit, or are more expected?
Interestingly, Gura's own blog lists only 11 amici, while scotusblog lists 18 (with reference to the Congressional/Cheney brief on its front page - so make that an unofficial 19) and the ABA site lists only 8. Makes me wonder how many have actually been filed....
Besides, I don't have a need to "hog the show," so to speak. BillCA is doing a good job; you yourself just presented a fair take on the Pink Pistols (though, arguably, there is more to it).
wolfmann, I don't know if this has anything to do with what you heard, but... The Members of the US Senate amicus brief was signed by 55 Senators, 250 Representatives and Dick Cheney as the President of the Senate. Cheney did not have to do this. He did, and that puts him at odds with Bush and the DOJ.
Here's the list of briefs for the Respondents:
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
- Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
- Criminologists
- Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
- Foundation for Free Expression
- GeorgiaCarry.org
- Grass Roots of South Carolina
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
- Libertarian National Committee
- Major General John D. Altenburg, et al.
- National Rifle Association
- Paragon Foundation
- Pink Pistols
- Rutherford Institute
- Second Amendment Foundation
- Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators, 250 Members of Congress
- Virginia1774.org
- Women state legislators and academics
Any bets that this is the limit, or are more expected?
Interestingly, Gura's own blog lists only 11 amici, while scotusblog lists 18 (with reference to the Congressional/Cheney brief on its front page - so make that an unofficial 19) and the ABA site lists only 8. Makes me wonder how many have actually been filed....
I'm reading, reading and.......reading!
The briefs for Heller are absolutely amazing. All of them are so well thought out and concise. The DC briefs are so weak compared to the Heller briefs that I almost feel embarrassed for the anti-gunners.
I counted (I could be wrong) 8 Democratic Senators signing on in support of Heller with one of them being Senator Russ Feingold!!!
I counted 65 Democratic Rep's. signing on in support of Heller!!!
My God!! Am I dreaming!!?? Some Democrats support the 2nd Amendment? I've got to be dreaming? I mean it, I simply have to be DREAMING!?
This one is going to go our way - BIG TIME - IMHO!! (Individual right and strict scrutiny IMHO.)
After all these years I can't believe it's really happening. Someone pinch me!
The anti-gunners have had their 40+ years to implement their anti-gun agenda and, as we all know, it has been an abysmal failure. Their days are numbered IMHO.
The anti-gunners are in HUGE trouble and they know it. Their "reign" is about to be smashed IMHO. I couldn't be happier. After all these years - FINALLY!
I'm sorry for the emotional post but I'm like a little kid in a toy shop right now. You just have to realize I've been fighting this battle all my adult life for Godsakes. (Just like so many of you have.)
After reading the briefs for Heller, coupled with the history of the 2nd Amendment that we all know about, I honestly can't envision one Sup. Ct. Justice going for the collective right theory. Some might not go for strict scrutiny but I don't think that will even be close.
The briefs for Heller are absolutely amazing. All of them are so well thought out and concise. The DC briefs are so weak compared to the Heller briefs that I almost feel embarrassed for the anti-gunners.
I counted (I could be wrong) 8 Democratic Senators signing on in support of Heller with one of them being Senator Russ Feingold!!!
I counted 65 Democratic Rep's. signing on in support of Heller!!!
My God!! Am I dreaming!!?? Some Democrats support the 2nd Amendment? I've got to be dreaming? I mean it, I simply have to be DREAMING!?
This one is going to go our way - BIG TIME - IMHO!! (Individual right and strict scrutiny IMHO.)
After all these years I can't believe it's really happening. Someone pinch me!
The anti-gunners have had their 40+ years to implement their anti-gun agenda and, as we all know, it has been an abysmal failure. Their days are numbered IMHO.
The anti-gunners are in HUGE trouble and they know it. Their "reign" is about to be smashed IMHO. I couldn't be happier. After all these years - FINALLY!
I'm sorry for the emotional post but I'm like a little kid in a toy shop right now. You just have to realize I've been fighting this battle all my adult life for Godsakes. (Just like so many of you have.)
After reading the briefs for Heller, coupled with the history of the 2nd Amendment that we all know about, I honestly can't envision one Sup. Ct. Justice going for the collective right theory. Some might not go for strict scrutiny but I don't think that will even be close.
rwilson452
New member
Whoa! I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. All that said, I think people are reading more into this case than they should. The SC has severely limited the question they will decide. Namely, is the DC gun ban unconstitutional. They are not going to rule on any other law.
I can't see how they can rule on that law without establishing the level of scrutiny that should be applied. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps they can find a way to do that. What I'm saying is if we get a real favorable ruling someone is still going to need to take other laws to court. Get ready to open your wallets and contribute to suits all over the country. In cases out west you can expect the 9th circuit to rule the way they usually do and it will need to be appealed all th way up. Other circuits are not much better. It seems to me that I read somewhere that it takes at least $200,000 to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court and there will need to be a lot of cases. It will also take a very long time.
I can't see how they can rule on that law without establishing the level of scrutiny that should be applied. I'm not a lawyer and perhaps they can find a way to do that. What I'm saying is if we get a real favorable ruling someone is still going to need to take other laws to court. Get ready to open your wallets and contribute to suits all over the country. In cases out west you can expect the 9th circuit to rule the way they usually do and it will need to be appealed all th way up. Other circuits are not much better. It seems to me that I read somewhere that it takes at least $200,000 to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court and there will need to be a lot of cases. It will also take a very long time.
If we get a favorable, strong decision, it will put a stop to the anti-gun movement as we know it IMHO. Akin to placing a mountain in front of a freight train.
If the SCOTUS rules for individual rights and strict scrutiny we should all be extremely happy.
I honestly don't think you're reading near enough into this case rwilson452. Not near enough IMHO.
Sure there will be challenges by the anti-gunners but they CLEARLY are in DEEP trouble IMHO.
Rwilson452: You don't think having SCOTUS deciding the 2nd Amendment is an individual right is important in terms of defeating the anti-gun movement?
That's what I've been waiting for all my life for Godsakes. The foundation of the anti-gun movement is premised on the collective right theory IMHO. That's why the Heller briefs concentrate so much on that aspect of our fight.
You add strict scrutiny to that decision and the anti-gun movement is over for all intents and purposes IMHO.
I'll gladly donate more money to future challenges.
If the SCOTUS rules for individual rights and strict scrutiny we should all be extremely happy.
I honestly don't think you're reading near enough into this case rwilson452. Not near enough IMHO.
Sure there will be challenges by the anti-gunners but they CLEARLY are in DEEP trouble IMHO.
Rwilson452: You don't think having SCOTUS deciding the 2nd Amendment is an individual right is important in terms of defeating the anti-gun movement?
That's what I've been waiting for all my life for Godsakes. The foundation of the anti-gun movement is premised on the collective right theory IMHO. That's why the Heller briefs concentrate so much on that aspect of our fight.
You add strict scrutiny to that decision and the anti-gun movement is over for all intents and purposes IMHO.
I'll gladly donate more money to future challenges.
add to list of respondents (if it has not already been mentioned):
The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)
http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/10/acru_files_amicus_curiae_in_heller_v_dc/
there's a link on the blog for the brief. it's a good read.
The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)
http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/10/acru_files_amicus_curiae_in_heller_v_dc/
there's a link on the blog for the brief. it's a good read.
rwilson452
New member
Wish I knew how to do the quote thing. Oh well. Yes I think the court finding the 2nd to be an individual right very important. If we get a strict scrutiny ruling it would be super great but I ain't buying any stock in that yet. What I was trying to point out is even if we get the best ruling possible, individual and strict scrutiny, all those gun laws will not magically disappear. This case is just the beginning. and the end is a long long way off. If we don't get a favorable ruling the shoe will be on the other foot. We should be able to get a small idea of where the judges stand when they do orals. I for one will not be holding a victory party until the the opinions are published. As yet I ain't seen the fat lady come on stage.
khanson241
Inactive
Answers to some of the questions above
I will try to answer some of the questions that have popped up during this thread.
There is no "hard" limit to the number of amicus briefs that can be filed. As a practical matter, the briefs are self-limiting. The briefs are extraordinarily expensive to produce, printing costs will run $2,000 alone, as they must be professionally bound, are on weird size paper, have to have certain color covers blah blah. So the number of people doing it "just because" face the initial threshold of cost. Figure at least 80-120 hours legal work plus the costs of printing.
I strongly suspect you will see more than 20 come COB monday.
Another limitation is just the arguments that can be made. Amicus gets 9,000 words, merits briefs get 15,000. That includes footnotes. How many different ways can the same case be argued? That is also why some briefs make almost mention of "what the second amendment means." More on that later.
As to consent, the court freely grants motions to allow amicus to file. Thus, the practice of most counsel is to file a letter with the court saying "we consent to all people who give us notice" filing briefs. At the SCOTUS, the main parties have little control over who files in their case. If someone completely disagrees with the way plainitff is arguing the case, in most instances that person can file an amicus brief saying "we agree with the result but plaintiffs are a bunch of goobers."
The statement of interest and histories of the groups. Technically, only groups with an interest are supposed to file the briefs. Thus the SCOTUS rules require a statement of interest. That is why those resume statements are in each brief.
(assuming we win) The effect of the Heller decision will be limited to the three D.C. statutes before the court. They will not, for instance, strick down chicago in their decision. But the decision can and will be used to stick a sharp stick in the eye of these places in the immediate aftermath. That is the way things work, folks. Building blocks. Look at the civil rights cases. They started with rock solid but very narrow decisions, which were built on. Answer the fundamental question, does it mean what it says. Next answer whether the amendment applies to the states (incorporation.) Next answer the standard of review (strict scrutiny or the DOJ suggested sister-kiss standard etc. As for the specific questions on the machine gun laws. Ultimately, I don't think it will overturn the machinegun framework in place, but what it might very well do is reopen the registry, rulling that capping the introduction of new guns into the registry is violative. That, afterall, is what DC's law does. Requires registration, but doesn't provide for registering any new guns. Just my three cents. (I get an extra penny because I signed a brief.)
The arguments made. It is completely a waste to have 20 briefs argue "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand." WE all know what it means. The parties are going to argue about what it means. Several amici will argue what it means. several amici will argue the history part of it. Several amici will argue the linguistics. Several will argue criminology etc. Nothing screams assclown like a giant "me too" brief. Thus the trick is to get each amici to address a particular need without duplication. I think you are getting a great demonstration of that nimble drafting in this case. Some duplication, but very little. And where it does exist, it exists with a purpose. For instance, the congressional brief might be duplicative, but it serves the purpose of adding "prestige" parties to the side. The upcoming state AG brief by ted cruz likewise will rebut the anti's state ag brief, even though the arguments are slightly duplicative. The upcoming state prosecutors brief by maricopa county, AZ again balances the anti's brief, even if somewhat duplicative.
So, read no brief in isolation; rather, read it as a part of the mosaic. If, for instance, you look at our Buckeye brief (commonly referred to as a Brandeis type brief) you see lots of emperical evidence but little legal argument, but then flip to page 31 of the SAF brief and they argue about the legal right to self defense. JFPO talks about genocide, PP talks about special discrimination and hints at the need for protection from class-based discrimination etc. Maybe one particular justice likes one particular argument and one paritcular brief will target that argument for that particular justice.
It is all out there; most of it wonderfully interlocking and serving a purpose. History in the making. Sit back, read them all, and enjoy the close to or more than $1,000,000 in legal work product filed in support of the Second amendment.
I hope all this helps. This is one of the more intelligent threads going and i wanted to chime in to help folks out where possible.
I will try to answer some of the questions that have popped up during this thread.
There is no "hard" limit to the number of amicus briefs that can be filed. As a practical matter, the briefs are self-limiting. The briefs are extraordinarily expensive to produce, printing costs will run $2,000 alone, as they must be professionally bound, are on weird size paper, have to have certain color covers blah blah. So the number of people doing it "just because" face the initial threshold of cost. Figure at least 80-120 hours legal work plus the costs of printing.
I strongly suspect you will see more than 20 come COB monday.
Another limitation is just the arguments that can be made. Amicus gets 9,000 words, merits briefs get 15,000. That includes footnotes. How many different ways can the same case be argued? That is also why some briefs make almost mention of "what the second amendment means." More on that later.
As to consent, the court freely grants motions to allow amicus to file. Thus, the practice of most counsel is to file a letter with the court saying "we consent to all people who give us notice" filing briefs. At the SCOTUS, the main parties have little control over who files in their case. If someone completely disagrees with the way plainitff is arguing the case, in most instances that person can file an amicus brief saying "we agree with the result but plaintiffs are a bunch of goobers."
The statement of interest and histories of the groups. Technically, only groups with an interest are supposed to file the briefs. Thus the SCOTUS rules require a statement of interest. That is why those resume statements are in each brief.
(assuming we win) The effect of the Heller decision will be limited to the three D.C. statutes before the court. They will not, for instance, strick down chicago in their decision. But the decision can and will be used to stick a sharp stick in the eye of these places in the immediate aftermath. That is the way things work, folks. Building blocks. Look at the civil rights cases. They started with rock solid but very narrow decisions, which were built on. Answer the fundamental question, does it mean what it says. Next answer whether the amendment applies to the states (incorporation.) Next answer the standard of review (strict scrutiny or the DOJ suggested sister-kiss standard etc. As for the specific questions on the machine gun laws. Ultimately, I don't think it will overturn the machinegun framework in place, but what it might very well do is reopen the registry, rulling that capping the introduction of new guns into the registry is violative. That, afterall, is what DC's law does. Requires registration, but doesn't provide for registering any new guns. Just my three cents. (I get an extra penny because I signed a brief.)
The arguments made. It is completely a waste to have 20 briefs argue "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand." WE all know what it means. The parties are going to argue about what it means. Several amici will argue what it means. several amici will argue the history part of it. Several amici will argue the linguistics. Several will argue criminology etc. Nothing screams assclown like a giant "me too" brief. Thus the trick is to get each amici to address a particular need without duplication. I think you are getting a great demonstration of that nimble drafting in this case. Some duplication, but very little. And where it does exist, it exists with a purpose. For instance, the congressional brief might be duplicative, but it serves the purpose of adding "prestige" parties to the side. The upcoming state AG brief by ted cruz likewise will rebut the anti's state ag brief, even though the arguments are slightly duplicative. The upcoming state prosecutors brief by maricopa county, AZ again balances the anti's brief, even if somewhat duplicative.
So, read no brief in isolation; rather, read it as a part of the mosaic. If, for instance, you look at our Buckeye brief (commonly referred to as a Brandeis type brief) you see lots of emperical evidence but little legal argument, but then flip to page 31 of the SAF brief and they argue about the legal right to self defense. JFPO talks about genocide, PP talks about special discrimination and hints at the need for protection from class-based discrimination etc. Maybe one particular justice likes one particular argument and one paritcular brief will target that argument for that particular justice.
It is all out there; most of it wonderfully interlocking and serving a purpose. History in the making. Sit back, read them all, and enjoy the close to or more than $1,000,000 in legal work product filed in support of the Second amendment.
I hope all this helps. This is one of the more intelligent threads going and i wanted to chime in to help folks out where possible.
Garand Illusion
New member
I have not the legal knowledge of many posting here ... but I do have a few decades experience of world and government watching ...
To me, and I honestly think to anyone of intelligence no matter what their personal bias, this case is a total smackdown. The anti side has been run rings around legally, intellectually, factually, and logically.
But ... I seem to remember an Olympic boxing match from the 80's where the American pounded his adversary, only to be ruled against by the North Korean judge. And while none of the SCOTUS judges may look Korean ... the principle may hold true.
But that said, you've got to hope they've have enough pride to rule in the right way. They haven't been given an easy out, but if they decide to put the most weight on that brief by the English professors claiming that the first part of the 2nd amendment is a ruling clause (or whatever phrase they used) and ignore the evidence to the contrary, then they may rule against Heller anyway. Just like jury's in a case (as you know if you've ever served on a jury) they have 100% right to decide what evidence to give weight to, how much weight, and what to ignore.
On the other side, though ... they are in no way limited with how they write up their ruling. If they do decide to write up a ruling that "we see this as a civil liberty as important as the 1st amendment, which must be incorporated into the 14th amendment and rule over state and local laws as well" (or however you would say that in legaleze) there's nothing to stop them from doing that. If you think there is ... please tell me where in the constitution they are so limited, as I haven't seen it. But I've seen several decision where comment has been made about what they would also consider in the future. I know in the real world they won't do that, but they can.
Agreeing with the posts above ... I think we've got to see something positive out of this, but something to build on, not something far reaching and inclusive. But just getting the individual right's ruling will be a victory of monumental proporations. NEVER again will the anti's be able to claim that "no law has ever been overturned by the 2nd amendment, and all supreme courts have agreed that it is not an individual right." That argument will be forever dead. Especially if it's a 7-2 ruling or some such.
To me, and I honestly think to anyone of intelligence no matter what their personal bias, this case is a total smackdown. The anti side has been run rings around legally, intellectually, factually, and logically.
But ... I seem to remember an Olympic boxing match from the 80's where the American pounded his adversary, only to be ruled against by the North Korean judge. And while none of the SCOTUS judges may look Korean ... the principle may hold true.
But that said, you've got to hope they've have enough pride to rule in the right way. They haven't been given an easy out, but if they decide to put the most weight on that brief by the English professors claiming that the first part of the 2nd amendment is a ruling clause (or whatever phrase they used) and ignore the evidence to the contrary, then they may rule against Heller anyway. Just like jury's in a case (as you know if you've ever served on a jury) they have 100% right to decide what evidence to give weight to, how much weight, and what to ignore.
On the other side, though ... they are in no way limited with how they write up their ruling. If they do decide to write up a ruling that "we see this as a civil liberty as important as the 1st amendment, which must be incorporated into the 14th amendment and rule over state and local laws as well" (or however you would say that in legaleze) there's nothing to stop them from doing that. If you think there is ... please tell me where in the constitution they are so limited, as I haven't seen it. But I've seen several decision where comment has been made about what they would also consider in the future. I know in the real world they won't do that, but they can.
Agreeing with the posts above ... I think we've got to see something positive out of this, but something to build on, not something far reaching and inclusive. But just getting the individual right's ruling will be a victory of monumental proporations. NEVER again will the anti's be able to claim that "no law has ever been overturned by the 2nd amendment, and all supreme courts have agreed that it is not an individual right." That argument will be forever dead. Especially if it's a 7-2 ruling or some such.
khanson241
Inactive
Garand has it right
You sir hit the hammer with the nail. Assuming we win, the most important part of this is that the collectivist intellectual prostitutes will be exposed forever and ever, amen. The individual right will be established, and all builds from there.
I personally cannot wait to see how people like Saul Cornell deal with a court decision that holds that their entire body of professional work is nonsense. I might just get a resume ready, OSU is just down the street and maybe they would want someone running the Second Amendment center who is slightly better than 100% wrong.
Oh, and on the North Korean judge....that is just one of those things that we can never control. They can throw us a bad decision pulled out of thin air. But to date the 2A has never helped us in court prior to Heller, so there is little loss. There is a school out there that thinks we should never ask the question for fear the answer will not be what we want it to be. To date, the unanswered question of individual vs. collectivist has done us zero good. I'm all for asking the question.
You sir hit the hammer with the nail. Assuming we win, the most important part of this is that the collectivist intellectual prostitutes will be exposed forever and ever, amen. The individual right will be established, and all builds from there.
I personally cannot wait to see how people like Saul Cornell deal with a court decision that holds that their entire body of professional work is nonsense. I might just get a resume ready, OSU is just down the street and maybe they would want someone running the Second Amendment center who is slightly better than 100% wrong.
Oh, and on the North Korean judge....that is just one of those things that we can never control. They can throw us a bad decision pulled out of thin air. But to date the 2A has never helped us in court prior to Heller, so there is little loss. There is a school out there that thinks we should never ask the question for fear the answer will not be what we want it to be. To date, the unanswered question of individual vs. collectivist has done us zero good. I'm all for asking the question.
Last edited:
- Status