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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been reading the briefs. Which briefs in support of Respondent Heller provide the best responses to the brief of the ABA? (I am not and never have been a member of the ABA).
 
Just read the ABA amicus. Bwaaahahaha.. :rolleyes:

Their argument consists of 3 parts;
1) This case directly challenges stare decisis
2) It would call into question many Federal firearms regulations
3) the 2nd only applies to flintlocks and muskets.
 
The ABA brief reminded me of that classic advice to lawyers: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither is on your side, pound on the table. The ABA brief was pounding on the table.
 
I've been reading the briefs. Which briefs in support of Respondent Heller provide the best responses to the brief of the ABA? (I am not and never have been a member of the ABA).
Click to expand...

I have read all of them, IMO the Prostitutes er um I mean prosecuting attorneys and the libertarian amici best debunk the ABA brief.

After reading the ABA brief, have been fighting an uncontrollable urge to tell the ABA to say no to crack, and start with mine.........
 
The ABA brief reminded me of that classic advice to lawyers: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither is on your side, pound on the table. The ABA brief was pounding on the table.
Click to expand...
It's the common thread among all the briefs for the District. I mean, what else have they got?
 
Antipitas:

Do you happen to know if audio of the orals will be broadcast anywhere?

As to your reference to Heinlein, perhaps one of his more trenchant observations. He wrote some interesting stuff.
 
Alan, it has been rumored that streaming audio will be available of the oral argument at Oyez.Org. You may have to register with Oyez to get that live stream.

What I do know is that the audio will be available for download at the above site, within a day of the arguments. Transcripts will also be available when the National Archives release them.
 
I've read the Petitioner's Reply Brief.

First reaction, it appears to have been authored by different person or persons. It has a much more lawyerly and legal tone, and almost no emotional hysteria. I hate to admit it, but IMHO a well written brief. I don't agree with their position, but it was better argued. They appear to have dropped the protecting society claims in the face of the respondent's and related amici.

2/3's of the brief is devoted to State's rights view of the second amendment. And nothing really new needs to be said here.

The next section and probably their best point was if the SCOTUS finds an individual right, than a relaxed standard of review is the proper standard and as long as a law is reasonable it should be constitutional. I think it was their strongest position put forward. And of coarse they had to parrot the machine gun scare, and for added good measure the dangerous weapons don't belong in civilized society claim.

The last section of their brief seemed to say that if the court declared trigger locks unconstitutional they could live with that as long as the rest of the DC law was held constitutional.

It started out as a pretty good brief, but I think it ended pretty weak. But if SCOTUS decides that the second amendment is an individual right and strict scrutiny is the standard, they didn't seem to be able to give the court a means of agreeing with their position.

This brief did met my expectations.

It is now on to March 18 and oral arguments.:)
 
Yes, it was authored by D.C.'s new attorney. I agree, it was much better than the original and the ending was not much more than a plea to keep the status quo.

I noticed that this reply was aimed almost solely at Gura and the S.G. They pretty much ignored the historical briefs that Heller's amici laid out, and relied upon their own amici.

I suppose they had to cut their losses, somehow....
 
and for added good measure the dangerous weapons don't belong in civilized society claim.
Click to expand...

Why do any "civilized" societies have armed, standing armies using dangerous weapons? To protect citizens from other dangerous, cilvilized societies.:rolleyes:

The last section of their brief seemed to say that if the court declared trigger locks unconstitutional they could live with that as long as the rest of the DC law was held constitutional.
Click to expand...

No matter what the court says, they'll still have to live with it.
 
Prb29 said:
The District and the United States agree that the trigger-lock law should be read to contain an implicit exception for self-defense. USBr31 n.8; Brief of DC Appleseed 29-31.7 Because respondent’s only challenge to the trigger-lock provision is that it fails to contain an exception for self-defense, the judgment should be reversed.
Click to expand...
Notice that D.C. sidesteps the issue that if there was an exception, why wasn't it placed there? Afterall, the exceptions exist for Business's and for recreational use... Which the Respondents actually made arguments to, Rb52-54secIII.

I believe such arguments by the petitioner, without proper backing (such as actual cases where the charges were not brought forward), is something the Court frowns upon. But I could be wrong.

The holes within this response brief are gaping.
 
Originally Posted by Prb29
"The District and the United States agree that the trigger-lock law should be read to contain an implicit exception for self-defense. USBr31 n.8; Brief of DC Appleseed 29-31.7 Because respondent’s only challenge to the trigger-lock provision is that it fails to contain an exception for self-defense, the judgment should be reversed."

The DC argument quoted by Brb29 conflicts with a fundamental rule of statutory construction:

expressio unius est exclusio alterius

(the express mention of one thing excludes others in the same class).

The relevant DC law states:

"§ 7-2507.02 Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked

Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia."

By expressly exempting business use and recreational use of long guns from the requirement to keep the firearm unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device, DC excludes other uses of long guns from the exemption from the disassembly or trigger lock requirement, and it would violate this rule of statutory construction to "read" the section as though it exempted a firearm being used for self-defense from the disassembly or trigger lock requirement.

I haven't read all of the briefs, but I did not see any argument in any I read that offered an argument to disregard this basic rule of statutory construction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top