seen at Reason.com (Reason magazine), the following might interest some


PDA






alan
January 16, 2009, 07:54 PM
Gun Control On Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment
By Brian Doherty

With exclusive behind-the-scenes access, the book delves into the monumental Heller case—where the Supreme Court ruled that individual citizens have the constitutional right to possess guns—to provide a compelling look at the inside stories of the forces that fought for and against the Second Amendment.

Price: $16.95
Publication Date: November 2008
ISBN: 978-1-933995-25-0
Number of Pages: 126
Hardcover (also available in E-Book)
Categories: 2008 Titles, Government and Politics, Hot Topics, Law and Civil Liberties, New Releases





You might also like...
If you like this title, you might also enjoy How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution.

Save 20% when you buy them together.



About the Book
This past June, the Supreme Court decided a question at the heart of one of America’s most impassioned debates, ruling that individual citizens have the constitutional right to possess guns. With that decision, the District’s handgun ban—one of the toughest and most controversial in the nation—was ended.

In Gun Control on Trial, journalist Brian Doherty tells the full story behind the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. With exclusive, behind the scenes access throughout the case, Doherty delved into the issues of this monumental case to provide a compelling look at the inside stories, including:
• The plaintiffs’ fight for the right to protect themselves and their families from violent neighborhoods.
• The activist lawyers who worked exhaustively to affirm that right.
• The forces that fought to stop the case, including city officials and the NRA.

The story of the Heller case stretches back to long before the decision struck down D.C.’s restrictive gun ban and forward to the future of the political and legal battle over gun control in America. Doherty provides clear, concise explanations of the issues and battles that have driven the gun control debate for decades, detailing how the Heller decision is a new starting point for the gun control debate as it passionately and energetically continues in the years ahead.

It’s important to note that the Heller decision does not settle every controversy in the gun control debate. “It only settles the legal question of whether or not the right to possess weapons under the Second Amendment extends to personal self-defense: it does,” writes Doherty.

“What the Supreme Court decided in Heller may be narrow in its direct and immediate effect; but it’s deep in its implications for the relationship between the government and the American people,” explains Doherty. “It establishes a new shape to the arena in which the legal and political struggle over guns and gun control will be fought. And that fight assuredly continues.”

WATCH A VIDEO ABOUT THE HELLER CASE FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE


FREE DVD of this video with every order.
[ TOP ]


About the Author
Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and Reason.com. He is the author of the books Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement and This is Burning Man. His articles have appeared in dozens of national publications, and he has appeared as a commentator and analyst on hundreds of TV and radio programs.
[ TOP ]


What Others Have Said
"As Brian Doherty so clearly demonstrates in Gun Control on Trial, were it not for the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment—and reaffirmed, in this inside account, by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller—we would forfeit our individual right to survive."
—NAT HENTOFF
Columnist, Village Voice
Author, Living the Bill of Rights: How to Be an Authentic American

"Brian Doherty’s Gun Control on Trial is to the Heller case what Richard Kluger’s Simple Justice is to the Brown decision—an essential history made up of equal parts legal theory and personal struggle, presented in page-turning fashion."
—GLENN REYNOLDS
Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Founder, Instapundit.com

"The Supreme Court’s Heller decision wasn’t merely a political bombshell, it was an historic advance in the ongoing struggle to restore the first human right: the right to self-defense. Brian Doherty, a tireless intellectual sleuth, not only sheds light on the political and legal questions surrounding gun rights today, he lucidly puts them in their proper historical and philosophical context. This is required reading for those interested in, never mind committed to, the right to self-defense."
—JONAH GOLDBERG
Contributing Editor, National Review
Author, Liberal Fascism

“The book is a brisk read, and it has the kind of direct observation and insider detail that can help bring even a well-plumbed case back to life. There's some fine material here.”
—MICHAEL DOYLE, Suits & Sentences legal affairs blog

If you enjoyed reading about "seen at Reason.com (Reason magazine), the following might interest some" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
January 16, 2009, 09:36 PM
After supporting Obama, Reason has apparently had a change of heart as of November 5th.

Unfortunately for them, I, and I'm sure I'm not alone, won't be subscribing as I had planned. Reason left a bad taste in my mouth.

Strakele
January 17, 2009, 12:28 PM
"The forces that fought to stop the case, including city officials and the NRA."

The NRA? Am I missing something here?

alan
January 17, 2009, 01:15 PM
Strakele wrote:

"The forces that fought to stop the case, including city officials and the NRA."

The NRA? Am I missing something here?

As memory serves, correction please should I err, the NRA of which I have been for many years, since 1973, a Life Member, was less than strong in what should have been it's support for what was originally Parker .

While the complainants in Parker blew it, had they, individually or collectively applied for the necessarry licenses/permits, their applications would have been denied, I submit that "being injured", they would have had the "standing" they were found by the court to have lacked. Mr. Heller jumped through the hoops, his SUBMITTED APPLICATION was denied, which likely provided him with "standing".

As to the role of the NRA in all this, it seemed to me that based on it's output, there would likely never be a good enough case, which obviously was wrong. By the way, this is NOT the first instance of NRA INACTION or PUSYFOOTING in which I thought the NRA to be seriously in error. Iam simply, as above noted, an individual Life Member though, and far removed from the Halls of Power.

BTR
January 17, 2009, 01:43 PM
The NRA apparently did not want the case to go to court, as they were very afraid Heller would lose. In fact, the decision was very very close- 5 to 4 after all.

The NRA was wrong in their fears, fortunately, and the case went pretty well.

Once it became apparent the case was going to trial after all, the NRA supported Heller of course, and submitted a brief on his behalf.

ArmedBear
January 18, 2009, 08:02 AM
The NRA made a strategic decision.

They didn't push for the case because they didn't think it was a safe enough bet.

Turns out, we got lucky -- maybe.

OTOH, time will tell if the NRA was right. Note that the case did nothing to prevent restrictive, expensive and burdensome licensing for Mr. Heller to own a single handgun. The decision actually suggests that this is not an "infringement."

Can you imagine a First Amendment case where the court decided that it is fine when you can say whatever you wanted, provided you registered with the city PD, provided fingerprints, and paid a rather large annual fee?

We'll see if we live to regret the Heller decision.

alan
January 18, 2009, 01:32 PM
In part ArmedBear offers re the NRA, Heller and USSC ruling the following:


OTOH, time will tell if the NRA was right. Note that the case did nothing to prevent restrictive, expensive and burdensome licensing for Mr. Heller to own a single handgun. The decision actually suggests that this is not an "infringement."

Can you imagine a First Amendment case where the court decided that it is fine when you can say whatever you wanted, provided you registered with the city PD, provided fingerprints, and paid a rather large annual fee?

We'll see if we live to regret the Heller decision.
-----------------------

While our side gets at least some benefit from the ruling, how much is open to question, as I for one thought it was couched to much in "lawyers talk", and "glittering generalities", re ArmedBear's comments on The First Amendment, might TOUCHE be appropriate?

BTR
January 20, 2009, 05:16 PM
Oh yeah, and I have no interest whatsoever in ever subscribing to Reason again, with their adoring articles about the new president.

I can't blame them for detesting mccain, but they could have at least supported the libertarian canidate (Barr) instead of the socialist one!

Duke of Doubt
January 20, 2009, 05:23 PM
Bob "Candy" Barr is no libertarian. I was amazed when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket. I mean, he's not a bad guy, but ... libertarian?

ArmedBear
January 20, 2009, 05:51 PM
Reason could have had some political impact.

Say, push for all readers to write in Alfred E Neuman. That would have generated a news story and would have made a political statement that people noticed.

Obambi was going to win or lose, with or without Reason's help. Why not try something that might actually attract attention?

MD_Willington
January 20, 2009, 08:20 PM
They didn't push for the case because they didn't think it was a safe enough bet.


That is odd, so they figure suing WA State is a safe bet?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=405574

alan
January 21, 2009, 05:45 PM
MD_Willington quoted and writes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmedBear
They didn't push for the case because they didn't think it was a safe enough bet.

That is odd, so they figure suing WA State is a safe bet?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=405574

---------------------------------

Much more than simply an interesting point, why the NRA files suit against Washington State, yet was so reticent regarding supprting what came to be known as D.C. v. Heller. For myself, as mentioned earlier, I've been a Life Member of NRA since 1973. Having said that, I never cease wondering re actions taken/actions untaken as to who or what "winds NRA up".

legaleagle_45
January 21, 2009, 06:03 PM
The Heller case scared the NRA, and properly so. It was initiated prior to Roberts and Alito ascending to the bench. The swing vote was O'Connor, not Kennedy.

Thus, they actively sought to torpedo the case. One of the methods employed was to try to pass gun rights legislation for DC residents in Congress. If it had succeeded, the Heller case would have been moot and it would have never reached SCOTUS. The other thing that they tried to do was insert themselves in the litigation by seeking to join it with another case that they controlled. The nature of that case would have shifted the focus of the case and resulted in a decision which did not implicate the 2nd Amend.

This caused some really bad feelings between the group responsible for bringing Heller (Cato) and the NRA, to the point that there was little direct communication between them, and almost all contact was through intermediaries.

However, that was the lead up... after Heller was succesful at the appeals level, and after Roberts and Alito joined the bench, the NRA supported the case 100% and with no reservations.... and the bad feelings between Cato and the NRA were healed, albeit with some visible scars.

Tyrannosaurus
February 5, 2009, 07:50 PM
From Wikipedia's District of Columbia v. Heller entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation." He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.

I think this is very important food for thought, especially for those who trust the NRA as the only organization devoted to RTKBA.

The NRA often credits themselves for the Heller decision, which is false. In fact, they did their best to destroy it.

http://www.nraila.org/heller/

If you enjoyed reading about "seen at Reason.com (Reason magazine), the following might interest some" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!