[MicroBalrog]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/NRA_amicus.pdf

[FPrice]

I have to plead a tiny bit of ignorance here. Can you refresh my memory about what this is all about?

Thanks.

[Kharn]

FPrice:
Basically, Silveira and a couple other guys are suing Kali AG Lockyer and saying the Kali AW ban is unconstitutional (and thus must be revoked). They've made it to the US Supreme Court and the NRA has filed whats called an Amicus Curaie (I think I spelled that wrong) in support of Silveira, which asks that the Supreme Court hear the case and decide if the AW ban is unconstitutional or not.

Kharn

[2dogs]

Just read the brief, it is very good.

Glad that NRA got on board.:)

[Brett Bellmore]

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amicus.htm

Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.

"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89.

Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case. Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.

"An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

"FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwise consent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless the court for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicus curiae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinary reasons." Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[FPrice]

"Basically, Silveira and a couple other guys are suing Kali AG Lockyer and saying the Kali AW ban is unconstitutional (and thus must be revoked). "

Thanks for the reminder.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not a bad brief. Looks like they didn't miss any major points, or make any major mistakes. (That I noticed, anyway.) It concisely explains why the Court ought to take the case.

[geekWithA.45]

It's refreshing to see a clear, concise, no compromise brief coming from the NRA.

It's a good downpayment on the restoration of my faith in them.

BTW, whyinheck don't they have this on their webpage? They don't communicate well with their members, and I think that's a big part of their problem.

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

I'm still not a lawyer ;) but this looks very well done to me as well.

I wonder what it's going up against?

- pdmoderator

[MicroBalrog]

Nothing. There'll never will be cert.:banghead:

[Waitone]

<Neighborhood cynic arrives and begins elbowing his way into the room with the crackerbarrel>

The case is appealing on its face.

However, the case will be presented before a supreme court which just recently fabricated a right not appearing in the written copy of the BoR and constitution. Furthermore the court ignored consitiutional provisions which in the written copy. Then that same court had three members proudly reveal they took guidance in coming to its opinion by consulting foreign and international law. They made the announcement and hopped a plane to Italy to talk about European affairs.

Now we here are patting ourselves on the back because we think we have a good case to force the court's hand on the second amendment.

The case may be good but the court is flat-out dangerous. Until we get different justices on the court about the only decision making I'd let those clown do is judge BBQ competition.

I view the SCOTUS as being out of control yet the dangers of that are not recognized by some in the pro-2 community.

Bad mojo on the rise.

<Neighborhood cynic rises from his chair, tips his hat, bows humbly from the waist and departs the room.>

[Futo Inu]

It's very good. I know there's a lot of space constraints, but 2 things I would have brought up in addition: The fact that the citizens' militia could have in fact been needed to fight enemies from without as recently as 1943-45, when there was great concern as to whether Japan might invade the U.S. Some members of the SCOTUS are probably old enough to remember that. Second thing, sigh...I already forget what it was...I'll edit later.

As to the question of "whether the Calif law violates the 2A", as established in the NRA brief, they didn't get to that, but presumably this is because of space considerations, and because most assuredly the Petitioners' Brief in Chief will have thorougly covered the violation itself (what the definition of "arms" is, and what arms are protected, to what extend, and where and when one can keep and bear them). The amicus breifs are a nice way for the petitioners to expand on some ideas that space contraints didn't allow them to in their brief in chief, so NRA hammered the textual stuff, historical/militia/individual right stuff, and to a lesser extent, the incorporation stuff. Very good job on the textual stuff though, particularly the reference to the recent copyright case, and its use by analogy.

Waitone, you're right, however, it would be nice if we could wait until a few croak and resign - O' Connor and one other are predicted to resign in the next 1-2 years (forget which other) - might be better to let shrub appt a couple more - maybe they will in between when cert is granted and when the case is heard, if we're lucky (and if cert is granted). I guess Silveira et al forced NRA's hand - if someone's gonna appeal to the SCOTUS in a less than timely manner, and you can't stop them, it's still better to file an amicus brief than no amincus brief, ceterus paribus, on a case that could be THE precedent for generations to come. Pelican Brief, anyone? :evil: JK, of course.

[Jim March]

I thought it was quite good. About the only thing I'd have done differently would be to hammer on Cruikshank just a bit more - including explaining how racist and literally pro-KKK a decision it was.

But, that's probably not necessary, the USSC probably realizes it's an embarassment.

There's unfortunately one other concern: a different set of NRA lawyers filed an Amicus which is 100% opposite this one for the 9th Circuit's En Banc decision. That brief asked the court NOT to hear it. So...hmmm...I don't know if that'll leave a "credibility gap" now or not.

I hope not.

[geekWithA.45]

There's unfortunately one other concern: a different set of NRA lawyers filed an Amicus which is 100% opposite this one for the 9th Circuit's En Banc decision.

Conspiracy or Cockup?

Sounds like a cockup to me.

[geekWithA.45]

Re: Suitability of THIS court.

Americans shouldn't be willing to wait another generation. 5 years maybe, if the pace of decay of civil liberty doesn't accellerate. The long and the short of it is that if the Supreme Court fails in it's task as being the backstop of Liberty, the Republic will have failed in its role as the Steward of Freedom.

Possible outcomes and probable effects:

-Refuses to hear = biz as usual, but the pressure and "ripeness of the issue" will increase as the spirit of the times demands it.

-Hears The Case
-Weak/vague/ambiguous ruling = biz as usual, perhaps some improvements.
-Reinstates the 2nd: Dancing in the streets
-Eviscerates the 2nd: Casts the entirety of the founding principles into doubt, and marks the End of the Republic. Bloodshed a distinct possibility.

[twoblink]

Waitone,

I hate to disagree with you, but the current Barnum & Baily Circus that we call the US Supreme can't tell a good BBQ from a bad one..

They are clowns who ignore the law, and decide things on a whim.. So it will be a serious uphill battle..

Once in for all, someone's just gotta drop the hammer and say either the 2nd is what it is, or that the 2nd should be revoked. I think this tiddly-winks has got to stop. And force them to say, they are either for or against... nothing in between...

We THR will then act accordingly..

[Sven]

-Hears The Case
-Weak/vague/ambiguous ruling = biz as usual, perhaps some improvements.
-Reinstates the 2nd: Dancing in the streets

I won't be dancing, I'll be ordering an AR-15.

[Telperion]

If they truly reinstate the 2A, I'll be ordering an M16, not an AR-15. ;)

Having read the cert petition and skimmed the NRA brief, it seems like they're trying to table questions about the AW ban itself and just get a definitive ruling on the 2A and how it applies to the states. If they get that, then specific questions regarding Cali's AW ban get remanded back to lower courts, which will have to answer them in the context of an individual rights interpretation.

[Leatherneck]

Has anyone got info re: the Justices' clerks? Which ones are most influential? And any background on those clerks' previous leanings/associates being involved in anti-gun type activities? My impression is that the clerks have a lot of influence, as they write all the briefs.

Anyone?

TC
TFL Survivor

Fer' instance, wouldn't it be interesting to turn up a linkage to some MMM/Brady/HCI group?

[geekWithA.45]

Having read the cert petition and skimmed the NRA brief, it seems like they're trying to table questions about the AW ban itself and just get a definitive ruling on the 2A and how it applies to the states. If they get that, then specific questions regarding Cali's AW ban get remanded back to lower courts, which will have to answer them in the context of an individual rights interpretation.

Once in for all, someone's just gotta drop the hammer and say either the 2nd is what it is, or that the 2nd should be revoked. I think this tiddly-winks has got to stop.

If there is a unifying principle for all humans who truly know the difference between being free or being subjects, this is it.

As folks who understand and practice this freedom, THIS is what we need to drop our differences and get behind, as it really is secondary to all other tactical considerations such as CCW permits, revoking the AWB, and holding the line on registration. IMO, all such tactical efforts are in the forefront because we despair of a clarifying ruling ever happening. Since the time is getting pretty ripe to go on the offensive, THIS the the high ground to take.

The tiddly-winks has got to stop.