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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are now 42 Respondent Amicus Curiae briefs filed.

That is huge.:p

See Grand Illusion post for the other 34

American Center for Law and Justice
Center for Individual Freedom
Goldwater Institute
Heartland Institute
International Scholars
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Retired military officers


Well, next date March 4th, when Petitioner's Reply brief is due.
 
Here's the latest list, comparing DCGunBlog (in blue) and scotusblog (normal):
  • Texas, for Thirty One (31) States of the Union
  • Texas and other states
  • Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators, 250 Members of Congress
  • Members of Congress and Vice-President Cheney
  • Goldwater Institute (Responding to the Solicitor General)
  • Goldwater Institute
  • Edwin Meese, et al. (Former Dept. of Justice Officials)
  • Former Justice Department officials
  • Claremont Institute/Criminologists
  • Criminologists
  • Int’l Law Enforcement Trainers & Educators, et al. [Law Enforcement & Prosecutors on Self-Defense]
  • International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association
  • National Rifle Association
  • National Rifle Association
  • Cato Institute/Joyce Lee Malcolm [The Right Inherited from England]
  • Cato Institute and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm
  • Retired Military Officers
  • Retired military officers
  • Second Amendment Foundation [Prof. Lund Brief]
  • Second Amendment Foundation
  • Academics for the Second Amendment
  • Acadmecis for the Second Amendment
  • Academics [Addressing DC Crime]
  • ----
  • Foreign Academics [International/Comparative Law]
  • International Scholars
  • Institute for Justice [14th Amendment]
  • Institute for Justice
  • Citizens Committee [Debunking the other side’s myths and errors]
  • Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
  • Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, et al. [Prosecutors]
  • ----
  • Center for Individual Freedom [Debunking Collectivist Precedent]
  • Center for Individual Freedom
  • Joseph Scaranti, President Pro Tem Pa. Senate [Pennsylvania History]
  • Joseph B. Scarnati, III, President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate
  • Southeastern Legal Foundation [Utility of Handguns]
  • Southeastern Legal Foundation
  • National Shooting Sports Federation
  • National Shooting Sports Foundation
  • Heartland Institute, Prof. Volokh
  • Heartland Institute
  • Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al. [911 Brief]
  • Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
  • American Legislative Exchange Counsel [State Constitutional RKBA]
  • American Legislative Exchange Council
  • State Firearms Associations
  • State Firearms Associations
  • American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
  • Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
  • Pink Pistols
  • Pink Pistols
  • Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
  • Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
  • Women State Legislators and Academics
  • Women state legislators and academics
  • GeorgiaCarry.org [Racist Roots of Gun Control]
  • GeorgiaCarry.org
  • Congress of Racial Equality [Racist Roots of Gun Control]
  • ----
  • Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense, et al.
  • Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense
  • Alaska Outdoor Council, et al.
  • Alaska Outdoor Council
  • Libertarian National Committee
  • Libertarian National Committee
  • Paragon Foundation
  • Paragon Foundation
  • American Center for Law & Justice
  • American Center for Law and Justice
  • Grass Roots South Carolina
  • Grass Roots of South Carolina
  • Liberty Legal Institute
  • Liberty Legal Institute
  • Gun Owners of America
  • Gun Owners of America
  • American Civil Rights Union
  • ----
  • Rutherford Institute [Resistance to Tyranny]
  • Rutherford Institute
  • Jeanette Moll/Bill of Rts Foundation
  • Jeanette Moll
  • Mountain States Legal Foundation
  • Mountain States Legal Foundation
  • Foundation for Free Expression
  • Foundation for Free Expression
  • Virginia 1774
  • Virginia1774.org
  • Foundation for Moral Law
  • Foundation for Moral Law
  • AHSA
  • Major General John D. Altenburg, et al.
I count 46 documents (42 for scotisblog)

Hmmm... That's 66 amici briefs in total. Is this a record for the Supreme Court?

ETA: Over at Oyez.org you will be able to listen to the oral arguments as soon as they are released (Next best thing to being there). So after March 18th, keep checking the link above for the release of the audio.

And just to let you know, you can rarely tell what the Justices are thinking (and by extension, how they will decide) by listening to the orals (or reading the transcripts).
 
Last edited:
And just to let you know, you can rarely tell what the Justices are thinking (and by extension, how they will decide) by listening to the orals (or reading the transcripts).

But it will be a whole new cup of tea leaves to read! :D We'll be bored talking about the amici by then, so it will keep us going until next summer when the decision is released.
 
The supreme court does NOT allow broadcasts of it's proceedings. your just going to need to wait until the reporters come out and post their stories. Generally speaking the reporters that report these proceedings are good at it.

The Michigan discrimination case oral arguments were on CSPAN, just audio, no video.
 
Unofficial record number of briefs ever filed in a case

Okay, this is unofficial, but I think we have a record.

Judicial Politics: Readings from Judicature by Elliot Slotnick contains an article attributing Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) as having the most amici briefs ever filed in a Supreme Court case.

Turning to Webster, my unofficial count:

21 briefs were filed urging the court to affirm, 35 were filed urging the court to reverse.

So as far as aggragate number, and number filed on one side, Heller has set a new record.

Attrib to Ken Hanson esq. please, unless I'm wrong, then Attribute it to Sarah Brady :)
 
States sign friend of the court gun rights brief

This was in the Missoula Montana paper this morning.
Please forgive me if a thread on this already exists.

Source:
http://missoulian.com/articles/2008/02/12/news/local/news02.txt

HELENA - Attorney General Mike McGrath on Monday formally threw Montana's weight behind a friend of the court brief filed in a high-profile gun rights case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Montana, along with 30 other states, signed the brief, which was written by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

The document asserts that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to own guns for personal use and is not, as some have argued, a guarantee that only citizen militias, like the National Guard, may have guns.

“At issue here is whether the Second Amendment has any modern meaning and whether it allows individual citizens to have a weapon for private use,” said McGrath in a prepared statement. “We believe it does.”

The case stems from Washington, D.C.'s, ban on handguns. These guns are forbidden in the nation's capital and rifles and other guns kept in people's homes must be stored either disassembled or with the trigger locked.

Dick Heller, a Washington, D.C., security guard, applied and was turned down for a permit to keep a gun in his home. He took the matter to court and won, arguing that the district's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

Both Heller and the government of the District of Columbia asked the Supreme Court to review the matter, a decision which could bring some clarity to the meaning of the right to “keep and bear arms.”

The U.S. Constitution specifically states that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Some have argued that the right pertains only to militias or citizens in militias, like the National Guard. Others, including McGrath and attorneys general from Florida to Alaska, argued in Monday's filing that the right extends to all citizens.

Gun rights groups around the nation have hailed the case as among the most important in U.S. gun law.

The case has also played a bit role in the so far quiet race for Montana attorney general. Term limits bar McGrath from seeking another term and he is now running for chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court.

Helena lawyer Republican Tim Fox, who is running for attorney general, chided McGrath earlier for not getting involved in the case sooner with a friend of the court filing. McGrath countered that he intended to sign on to the document as soon as it was prepared and filed.

Republican Lee Bruner, a Butte lawyer also running for attorney general, likewise urged McGrath to get involved in the case.
 
Would not it be nice if the members of the court actually do thier job correctly which is to detirmine if a law passed fits into the Consistution and Bill of Rights. The founding fathers were very clear that the citizens were to keep arms all any one has to do is read thier own words.
 
I just want some enterprising journalist to ask Hillbama/McCainabee...

So dude (or duddette as the case may be) what do you think of the Heller case?:D

WilddeleriousAlaska TM
 
McCain signed on in Congress's support of Heller. Hilllary Clinton and Barrack Obama did not. I'm not surprised by either one.

As usual, the vast majority of Democrats show they do not support the individual right theory but do support the total prohibition of private firearms ownership. Nothing new or surprising about that.

Most of the Democrats in Congress support DC's position.

It's so obvious, I can't believe anyone would have to ask the question.:confused:

The Republican nominee for President supports Heller, the eventual nominee for the the Democrats supports DC. DUH!

It would be entertaining to have them give an answer on a "mainstream" newscast though.:D

The problem with that is I wouldn't see it.;)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_congress.pdf
 
I doubt we'll see Hillary or Obama address the Heller case.

Has anyone broken down the 300 or so congresscritters who signed the brief supporting Heller by party? I would expect mostly R's, but there have to be some D's in there to get to 300. How about on the other side? Were there not 50 or so congresscritters supporting DC? Any R's?
 
Brief about 14th Amendment and incorporation

I really like the Institute for Justice Amicus Curiea brief on incorporation.

I thought is was extremely well written and I'm happy that this brief is before SCOTUS.

Now, we will have to wait and see if it makes an impact on SCOTUS.

Cheers.:p
 
By the time I get done reading all of these (if ever, anyway) I think I'll be ready to take the BAR examination. Are there still any states that let you take the BAR without going to law school? Years ago there were.

Lots of good stuff. On the anti side, I actually thought the professors brief on the English Language was rather dangerous. If the justices decide to believe that and not all the opposing views, it gives them an easy out.
 
I actually thought the professors brief on the English Language was rather dangerous.
Alan Gura says this about linguistics (my emphasis):
No doubts or ambiguities arise from the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context. (pg 9)
I have all the briefs downloaded now (dial-up can be really, really slow at times!), have perused them and am now reading them more thoroughly.

Of particular interest (to me) is the Errors Brief (CCRKBA), which documents most of the fallacies used by the District and their amici, and the 911 Brief (Buckeye Firearms Assoc.), which answers directly the Districts contention that they have the best interests of their citizens at heart.
 
An excellent rebuttal to the United States AmCU

Wow! I just finished reading the Goldwater Institute AmCu brief which is responding to the United States [of America] Solicitor General's AmCu brief. (filed with Petitioner AmCu)

Quote from brief:

"Without acknowledging its change of course to
this Court, the government now advocates the very
“relaxed standard of review” it declined to endorse
before this Court just five years ago."

This brief was IMHO a tough hard-hitting no punches barred, condemnation of the Solicitor General's brief. I think the Solicitor General has just been out-gunned at high-noon!:)

A very well written brief.:D
 
I learned over at Dave Hardy's ofarmsandthelaw.com that the Solicitor General wants oral argument time.

I don't want to hear from them about "heightened scrutiny" and I hope the court doesn't either.

That is thoroughly dis-heartening. It is an unconscionable act for the SG/DOJ to push their "heightened scrutiny" agenda regarding the entire bill of rights in the midst of this critical case for both sides of the pro/anti gun movement.

Frankly, I want some of the next pieces of civil rights judicial procedings to directly focus on "heightening the scrutiny" used to reign in abusive government powers. Let's "heighten the scrutiny" on the Commerce Clause, Executive powers to police and make war, and for intelligence agencies to intercept domestic communications.

The SG/DOJ is afraid that if one right means what it really says, then precedent is recently established that would apply to the 1st, 4th and 9th amendments as well.

I hope the Court throws his request in the trash... or that Cheney submits a request to give oral argument to derail the administration's position. :) That's the one truly admirable thing I've seen him do as VP - sign on with Heller and the Congressional Amicus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top