The amici by ACRU makes a mistake in the following:
The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the States on 09-25-1789. Of those amendments, there were 12 distinct proposals. The first 2 articles were not accepted by enough States (the second article was actually ratified on 05-07-1990, making it the 27th amendment). The last ten were accepted and ratified on 12-15-1791.
The second amendment is second only by virtue of it being the fourth proposed amendment, which when the first two were not ratified, make it number 2. It holds no other significance as to its numbered placement within the BOR.
One would expect this organization to know its history and get it correct when dealing with the Supreme Court. How this will affect anything goes at least to their credibility. Which credibility is further weakened by their use of the same erroneous data point on pg 10, para 3:
Part IV of the amici (starts at the bottom of pg 11) thoroughly rebuts D.C.s contention that the handgun ban is reasonable and has prevented crime.
In my opinion, they should have thrown out much of Part III (starting on the bottom half of pg 7). Their credibility was lost at that stage.
The current approach by the Circuit almost precludes standing in any pre-enforcement challenge except those that are challenging the 1st amendment. This is due to Navegear and reinforced by Seegars.
So D.C.'s response to the conditional cross-petition they are, of course, going to downplay any and all aspects of standing within the D.C. Circuit. It is to their advantage to keep standing at absurdly high levels for any pre-enforcement challenges, should they enact other/more laws that conflict with any other rights of the people.
(pg 9, para 2)Moreover, the Second Amendment is placed second in a long list of individual rights, indicating not only that it is an individual right, but a very important one.
The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the States on 09-25-1789. Of those amendments, there were 12 distinct proposals. The first 2 articles were not accepted by enough States (the second article was actually ratified on 05-07-1990, making it the 27th amendment). The last ten were accepted and ratified on 12-15-1791.
The second amendment is second only by virtue of it being the fourth proposed amendment, which when the first two were not ratified, make it number 2. It holds no other significance as to its numbered placement within the BOR.
One would expect this organization to know its history and get it correct when dealing with the Supreme Court. How this will affect anything goes at least to their credibility. Which credibility is further weakened by their use of the same erroneous data point on pg 10, para 3:
[emphasis mine]But are we to believe that what the Framers were concerned about in the Second Amendment was to protect the right of citizens to be armed while serving in the military? Indeed, that they were so concerned about it that they listed it second in the sacred list of protected individual rights consecrated in the Bill of Rights? Were the Framers concerned that without the Second Amendment Americans might be sent into battle by the government unarmed?
Part IV of the amici (starts at the bottom of pg 11) thoroughly rebuts D.C.s contention that the handgun ban is reasonable and has prevented crime.
In my opinion, they should have thrown out much of Part III (starting on the bottom half of pg 7). Their credibility was lost at that stage.
__________
The current approach by the Circuit almost precludes standing in any pre-enforcement challenge except those that are challenging the 1st amendment. This is due to Navegear and reinforced by Seegars.
So D.C.'s response to the conditional cross-petition they are, of course, going to downplay any and all aspects of standing within the D.C. Circuit. It is to their advantage to keep standing at absurdly high levels for any pre-enforcement challenges, should they enact other/more laws that conflict with any other rights of the people.