Amicus briefs supporting DC in Heller on line
- Thread starter Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Al Norris
Member
Why the surprise?
They weren't there earlier this morning when I looked (0600 MDT).
AAR, thanks for the heads-up. I was wondering what to read for the weekend!
They weren't there earlier this morning when I looked (0600 MDT).
AAR, thanks for the heads-up. I was wondering what to read for the weekend!
Regolith
Member
I started reading the History Professors brief. It was done by a handful of professors (about five), and I got about to the second page when I stopped reading, mostly because they were working with a flawed premise.
Essentially, it was a false dilemma. They said that the question posed was
Last time I checked, it was both. The cynic in me thinks that they KNEW that the 2nd Am. was set up for both reasons, hence they set up the false dilemma to get around that problem and because they knew they could find evidence for the one and exclude evidence for the other (i.e. lying by omission). Either that or they are piss poor professors.
Essentially, it was a false dilemma. They said that the question posed was
Last time I checked, it was both. The cynic in me thinks that they KNEW that the 2nd Am. was set up for both reasons, hence they set up the false dilemma to get around that problem and because they knew they could find evidence for the one and exclude evidence for the other (i.e. lying by omission). Either that or they are piss poor professors.
OP
OP
Librarian
Member
Gene Hoffman had the notice up at Calguns at 1841 PST. Don't know why he picked up on it so quickly.
Yesterday, Dave Hardy had a post on the history professors having to reprint and resubmit their brief because it was 522 words too long. That one popped up on dcguncase this afternoon.
damien
Member
Hopefully a million entities file Amicus briefs. Then SCOTUS won't be able to read them all and will have to rule on the substantive facts of the case, which all support the originalist theory.
Eightball
Member
For those of us less "in-tune" with the definitions here......
....what am I looking at?
....what am I looking at?
OP
OP
Librarian
Member
As in 'what is an amicus curiae brief' or 'what does this set affect' or 'what does all the content mean'?
First 2 are easy; third is quite a bit harder - in fact, the theorizing in them is half the reason why the Heller case is in the Supreme Court.
1st answer: amicus curiae, 'friend of he court' (which I guess you already knew)
2nd answer: DC was required to go first. Heller's side files its brief Feb 4. Amicus briefs for that side are due a few days later.
MrTuffPaws
Member
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks so much for the good laugh
Gray Peterson
Member
it's essentially all that it is.
Btw, the brief from the states (NY, NJ, IL, HI) continues to bring up issues of incorporation. That's a terrible error at least from their perspective.
Btw, the brief from the states (NY, NJ, IL, HI) continues to bring up issues of incorporation. That's a terrible error at least from their perspective.
Unisaw
Member
The brief by the Violence Policy Center is such garbage that it is laughable. I suspect the justices will attach no value to it.
Oh my. That VPC brief is comedic. From it I've learned that:
*Semiautomatic pistols didn't exist thirty years ago.
*Large caliber ammunition didn't exist thirty years ago.
*AK-47s are new, high-tech, highly-concealable, baby/cop killing assault pistols.
*The S&W Model 500 is a modern, high-tech “vest-buster.”
*Handgun ammunition is more lethal than shotguns or rifles.
:banghead:
Please tell me there's a penalty for perjury in SCOTUS briefs..
*Semiautomatic pistols didn't exist thirty years ago.
*Large caliber ammunition didn't exist thirty years ago.
*AK-47s are new, high-tech, highly-concealable, baby/cop killing assault pistols.
*The S&W Model 500 is a modern, high-tech “vest-buster.”
*Handgun ammunition is more lethal than shotguns or rifles.
:banghead:
Please tell me there's a penalty for perjury in SCOTUS briefs..
Agreed, the contradictions are astonishing:
1) Modern "military style, semiautomatic assault pistols" are lethally efficient and effective...in the hands of criminals. However, for self-defense they are hard to control and fire accurately. I guess criminals are super-human enough to control these monstrosities...
2) Semiautomatic handguns are the devil.... but we don't like the .500 S&W revolver either because its a "vest-buster".
3) Very credible for VPC to reference its studies on every page...
4) New modern handguns are smaller, yet more lethal... Don't blame us, thank your support of the 10-round magazine limit in the 94' AWB. Gun manufacturers can be quite innovative when given a challenge.
I could go on, its 40+ pages of the above non-sense.
Here is something from the antigun LA Times that explains things more fully from our so called pro-gun current President:
Bush administration backs gun regulation
A D.C. ban on home handguns may not be constitutional, the solicitor general tells the Supreme Court, but rights are limited and federal firearm restrictions should be upheld.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2008
WASHINGTON -- In their legal battle over gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, gun- control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.
But that's just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld.
Reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," he said in the brief. Moreover, the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders, he said.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," Clement said. He filed the brief in a closely watched case involving Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns at home for self-defense.
The head of a gun-control group said he was pleasantly surprised by the solicitor general's stand.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, said he saluted the administration for recognizing a need for limits on gun rights.
Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate who is leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, expressed disappointment at the administration's position. He said he was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back for further hearings in a lower court.
"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our position," Gura said.
This year, for the first time, the court is expected to rule squarely on whether the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun despite laws or ordinances restricting firearms.
In the past, this amendment has sometimes been read as protecting only state militias. It says: "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."
The case before the court tests the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually restrictive ordinance. Clement, the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, agreed that the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations." D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and is probably unconstitutional, he added.
A ruling along these lines would be a major victory for advocates of gun owners' rights.
But the solicitor general devoted most of his brief, filed late Friday, to urging the court to move cautiously and to make clear that the 2nd Amendment does not threaten most current restrictions on guns and gun owners.
Clement also said the court should stop short of striking down the D.C. ordinance on its own. Instead, he said, the case should be sent back to a trial judge.
"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny" he said, because it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home.
But such a ruling should not threaten other laws, he said. "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood . . . calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
Under Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, the Bush administration in 2001 switched the Justice Department's long-standing support for gun control and adopted the view that the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' gun rights.
The solicitor general holds an unusual position in the government.
He is an appointee of the president in the Justice Department, representing the administration's view in court. At the same time, he has a duty to defend the laws passed by Congress, including in this instance the restrictions on machine guns and who can own a firearm.
The solicitor general is also an advisor to the Supreme Court. And usually, the briefs filed by his office carry more weight with the justices than any others.
The court will hear arguments in the D.C. case in late March.
[email protected]
Bush administration backs gun regulation
A D.C. ban on home handguns may not be constitutional, the solicitor general tells the Supreme Court, but rights are limited and federal firearm restrictions should be upheld.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2008
WASHINGTON -- In their legal battle over gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, gun- control advocates never expected to get a boost from the Bush administration.
But that's just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld.
Reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," he said in the brief. Moreover, the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders, he said.
"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," Clement said. He filed the brief in a closely watched case involving Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns at home for self-defense.
The head of a gun-control group said he was pleasantly surprised by the solicitor general's stand.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, said he saluted the administration for recognizing a need for limits on gun rights.
Alan Gura, a key gun-rights advocate who is leading the challenge to the District of Columbia's gun law, expressed disappointment at the administration's position. He said he was troubled that Clement advised the justices to send the case back for further hearings in a lower court.
"We are not happy. We are very disappointed the administration is hostile to individual rights. This is definitely hostile to our position," Gura said.
This year, for the first time, the court is expected to rule squarely on whether the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a right to have a gun despite laws or ordinances restricting firearms.
In the past, this amendment has sometimes been read as protecting only state militias. It says: "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."
The case before the court tests the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually restrictive ordinance. Clement, the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, agreed that the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations." D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and is probably unconstitutional, he added.
A ruling along these lines would be a major victory for advocates of gun owners' rights.
But the solicitor general devoted most of his brief, filed late Friday, to urging the court to move cautiously and to make clear that the 2nd Amendment does not threaten most current restrictions on guns and gun owners.
Clement also said the court should stop short of striking down the D.C. ordinance on its own. Instead, he said, the case should be sent back to a trial judge.
"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny" he said, because it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home.
But such a ruling should not threaten other laws, he said. "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment properly understood . . . calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."
Under Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, the Bush administration in 2001 switched the Justice Department's long-standing support for gun control and adopted the view that the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' gun rights.
The solicitor general holds an unusual position in the government.
He is an appointee of the president in the Justice Department, representing the administration's view in court. At the same time, he has a duty to defend the laws passed by Congress, including in this instance the restrictions on machine guns and who can own a firearm.
The solicitor general is also an advisor to the Supreme Court. And usually, the briefs filed by his office carry more weight with the justices than any others.
The court will hear arguments in the D.C. case in late March.
[email protected]
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
So all you legal eagles out there, answer me this.
Seems everyone and their brother is filing some kind of brief on this.
Do the Supremes read them all? I assume they can do pretty much whatever they want with them, but historically do they really read these things?
Seems everyone and their brother is filing some kind of brief on this.
Do the Supremes read them all? I assume they can do pretty much whatever they want with them, but historically do they really read these things?
Megistopoda
Member
I think most of us were taken back by the sheer number of briefs (20) and the amount of material contained in them (collectively, 1021 pages). It is a lot of material for any one person to read critically, let alone interpret rationally and to place in context.
That said, what I am doing now is compiling the "Summary of Arguments" for all the briefs, and summarizing them, so I can get a broad view of what's going on here with the amici...to see if some patterns emerge. At first glance, it seems clear that the amici for DC collectively bring up any and all ramifications imaginable. Some appear to be reasonable and legitimate, others appear to be based on the same faulty arguments as the DC brief on the merits.
Regarding the DoJ brief, there has been a great deal of negative over-reaction to this (from our side, and in my mind). First, they take a clear view that the 2A, consistent with other bill of rights amendments, protects the rights of individuals. Further, the prefatory clause does not constrain the operative clause. HOWEVER, thier notion to remand down the court is not unsubstantiated or even surprising. The fact is that there is very little case law regarding the 2A, particularly little from the SCOTUS. Miller shall be helpful, but not much. Both sides argue veheemently that Miller supports their own arguments. Miller says that the 2A must be interpreted in light of the militia purpose; likewise, it states that individuals have a right to possess militia-appropriate weapons. These are big issues, people, and complicated. It is too much to hope that one ruling by the SCOTUS (the upcoming Heller ruling) will settle these matters. That said, I disagree with the DoJ in their argument that "all current federal gun control law is legitimate, and we can not [afford to] have a SCOTUS ruling that can be used to call those federal laws into question." In my mind, IF the constitutionality of those laws are indeed in question...then of course so too is the legitimacy of those laws. The DoJ doesn't seem to acknowledge that, and that is not good at all.
In all, these briefs and the groups who filed them make it crystal clear that the stakes are extremely high....higher than ever before. The case and the issues surrounding it has the potential of shaking the nation and the policies of it's government (and policies of states and local governments) to their very core. In part, what the DoJ is saying is that "we should make damned sure we've thought this through, before shaking the very nation to it's core." And in some ways, I agree with that. I do not necessarily think that remandation would be bad....though I would prefer a strong ruling from SCOTUS so that we can get the show on the road (correcting long-standing unconstitutional law and policy decisions....even in light of the American Bar Assosiation's argument of stare decicis...which effectively argues that established law should remain established law as a matter of course [and my reading between THEIR lines - EVEN IF such law is unconstitituional]).
This is the big one, people.
That said, what I am doing now is compiling the "Summary of Arguments" for all the briefs, and summarizing them, so I can get a broad view of what's going on here with the amici...to see if some patterns emerge. At first glance, it seems clear that the amici for DC collectively bring up any and all ramifications imaginable. Some appear to be reasonable and legitimate, others appear to be based on the same faulty arguments as the DC brief on the merits.
Regarding the DoJ brief, there has been a great deal of negative over-reaction to this (from our side, and in my mind). First, they take a clear view that the 2A, consistent with other bill of rights amendments, protects the rights of individuals. Further, the prefatory clause does not constrain the operative clause. HOWEVER, thier notion to remand down the court is not unsubstantiated or even surprising. The fact is that there is very little case law regarding the 2A, particularly little from the SCOTUS. Miller shall be helpful, but not much. Both sides argue veheemently that Miller supports their own arguments. Miller says that the 2A must be interpreted in light of the militia purpose; likewise, it states that individuals have a right to possess militia-appropriate weapons. These are big issues, people, and complicated. It is too much to hope that one ruling by the SCOTUS (the upcoming Heller ruling) will settle these matters. That said, I disagree with the DoJ in their argument that "all current federal gun control law is legitimate, and we can not [afford to] have a SCOTUS ruling that can be used to call those federal laws into question." In my mind, IF the constitutionality of those laws are indeed in question...then of course so too is the legitimacy of those laws. The DoJ doesn't seem to acknowledge that, and that is not good at all.
In all, these briefs and the groups who filed them make it crystal clear that the stakes are extremely high....higher than ever before. The case and the issues surrounding it has the potential of shaking the nation and the policies of it's government (and policies of states and local governments) to their very core. In part, what the DoJ is saying is that "we should make damned sure we've thought this through, before shaking the very nation to it's core." And in some ways, I agree with that. I do not necessarily think that remandation would be bad....though I would prefer a strong ruling from SCOTUS so that we can get the show on the road (correcting long-standing unconstitutional law and policy decisions....even in light of the American Bar Assosiation's argument of stare decicis...which effectively argues that established law should remain established law as a matter of course [and my reading between THEIR lines - EVEN IF such law is unconstitituional]).
This is the big one, people.
General Geoff
Member
They'll probably only consider reading them from supposedly unbiased sources (like the DOJ) and the constituents of the case.
Mike OTDP
Member
I commend you for having the stomach to read over that much material.
That being said, I would give long odds that the arguments fall into three categories:
1. The Second Amendment does not protect an individual right.
2. Even if it did, affirming the Heller decision would inconvenience gun control advocates.
3. Guns are icky.
My own assessment? All three general arguments parallel the arguments given in defense of segregation. And that is a comparison which I hope will be made.
Now, a question....does our side incur a risk by not having as many amicus filings? I figure that we'll have some...but not 1,000 pages worth.
That being said, I would give long odds that the arguments fall into three categories:
1. The Second Amendment does not protect an individual right.
2. Even if it did, affirming the Heller decision would inconvenience gun control advocates.
3. Guns are icky.
My own assessment? All three general arguments parallel the arguments given in defense of segregation. And that is a comparison which I hope will be made.
Now, a question....does our side incur a risk by not having as many amicus filings? I figure that we'll have some...but not 1,000 pages worth.
Megistopoda
Member
OK. So what I've done below is listed each of the amici and summarized in my own (brief) words what I think is the "gist" of their arguments. Later, I will try my hand at interpreting the bigger picture or overall scheme. Note that these summaries are based on each brief's own summary of the argument, and in some cases, their introduction to the argument.
That said, part of my response shall regard the frequency and urgency with which the incorporation question is brought up....very interesting.
Amici for Petitioner - listed in order of appearance here: http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/
Janet Reno, et al.
[2A protects rights only related to militia; Miller (1939) established (or at least confirmed) that; individual rights ruling would jeopardize federal gun control; such would limit ability to control crime]
National Network to End Domestic Violence
[Domestic violence is terrible (while it is terrible, argument appeals mostly to emotion); handguns often used in domestic violence; thus, banning them is justified]
American Jewish Committee, et al.
[Court below erred in its interpretation of the 2A; argues that the 2A protects state authority from the federal government; does not bar states and localities from protecting their populations (via gun bans)]
States of NY, HI, MA, MD, NJ and PR (OT - Puerto Rico is a state?)
[2A not applicable to state law, and no reason for it to be; 2A drafted to ensure federal government could not disarm state militias; amici states do not endorse handgun ban; argues against incorporation]
American Bar Ass’n
[Argues the importance of stare decisis in case law; as case law declares the 2A pertains only to militia purposes (cites Miller, 1939), ruling that it protects individual rights violates the principle of standing case law and as such lower court’s ruling should be overturned; failure to do so would call into question the constitutionality of “established” gun control laws]
Brady Center
[2A protects ownership of firearms only in the context of the militia; 2A was not meant to protect private ownership of arms; this was settled in the Miller (1939) decision; right to be armed for self-defense is “dangerous”; legislature is best to decide firearms prohibitions, not the judiciary]
U.S. Department of Justice (this might be the most significant brief...certainly among the most significant)
[2A protects right of individuals unaffiliated with militia to possess firearms; prefatory language does not negate the operative guarantee; court below erred in applying a categorical standard by which to evaluate protected arms/rights; argues that current federal gun control is established and important – SCOTUS decision should/must not be read as way to allow attack or invalidation of federal gun control legislation; banning NFA weapons is consistent with legitimate government interests; the issue of the scope of the 2A lacks case law and thus the issue should be remanded down the courts to flesh out detail and standards]
18 Members of Congress
[decision below read the 2A to create an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to militias; Miller is settled precedent in that 2A protects arms possession only in militia service; Note – these amici bring up incorporation but take no position regarding the question]
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
[the 2A has always been interpreted to permit governments to categorically prohibit particularly dangerous weapons; does not protect individual right to possess arms; handguns need to be prohibited because, in part, lots of black people use them to kill other black people]
Criminal Justice Professors
[bans on handguns are effective in reducing crime and violence – criminology studies have proven the DC ban has done so; effectiveness of DCs law would increase if surrounding states were to likewise ban handguns]
DA’s for SF, NY
[that the 2A does not restrain current gun control legislation, because A) 2A does not protect individual right, is not incorporated, and C) current restrictions are reasonable; that overruling the DC ban will have negative and unintended consequences]
American Academy of Pediatrics
[children are susceptible to injury or death due to handguns; thus, the ban should be upheld]
City of Chicago
[non-incorporation of 2A is settled law; 2A does not protect individual rights; if individual right, does not prohibit Chicago’s handgun ban (because of non-incorporation); Chicago is very concerned because her laws are very similar to DCs]
Winkler, Chemerinsky
[if the 2A is ruled to protect an individual right, it must outline standards of review for reasonable regulation; reasonableness review standard is appropriate because gun control schemes are unquestionably legitimate means of enhancing public safety; claims the SCOTUS has held that the predicate for heightened scrutiny is absent; in the event of incorporation, any 2A standard more demanding than reasonableness review will [unacceptably] burden the states with litigation challenging prior convictions for weapons offenses; right to bear arms should be regulated as is the right to “property”]
American Public Health Ass’n
[firearms profoundly and negatively affect public health; social cost of firearms in society is high; public health approach is needed regarding gun violence – which basically reasons that violent crime is epidemic, guns cause this epidemic, thus, guns in society are an unacceptable cost to society]
Appleseed Center, et al.
[assumes (only, I think, for purposes of the brief) that individual right exists; court should allow local, elected officials to decide how to regulate firearms according to their particular needs (because this is the democratic way); under any appropriate conception of reasonableness, DCs ban is reasonable]
Violence Policy Center
[if the SCOTUS rules individual right, they must make this right subject to reasonable restrictions; DCs ban is reasonable because handguns are uniquely lethal and dangerous, and have (even) evolved to become more so since DCs ban was passed; handguns are less effective than other firearms for self-defense]
Cities
[gun violence is very bad; major cities bear the brunt of this badness and violence (argue urban v. rural); firearm regulation a critical aspect of cities’ valid and reasonable public safety measures; 2A protections apply only to federal governments, not city governments]
History Professors
[argue that evidence from the ratification debates clearly signify that the 2A was not meant to protect the rights of individuals to possess arms; any right to arms is certainly not a fundamental right]
Linguistics Professors
[militia clause is defined as an “absolute construction” or an “absolute clause”; it means that “because (and only because) the militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; thus, the linguistics of the amendment dictate that right to arms is wholly restricted by the militia clause]
That said, part of my response shall regard the frequency and urgency with which the incorporation question is brought up....very interesting.
Amici for Petitioner - listed in order of appearance here: http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/
Janet Reno, et al.
[2A protects rights only related to militia; Miller (1939) established (or at least confirmed) that; individual rights ruling would jeopardize federal gun control; such would limit ability to control crime]
National Network to End Domestic Violence
[Domestic violence is terrible (while it is terrible, argument appeals mostly to emotion); handguns often used in domestic violence; thus, banning them is justified]
American Jewish Committee, et al.
[Court below erred in its interpretation of the 2A; argues that the 2A protects state authority from the federal government; does not bar states and localities from protecting their populations (via gun bans)]
States of NY, HI, MA, MD, NJ and PR (OT - Puerto Rico is a state?)
[2A not applicable to state law, and no reason for it to be; 2A drafted to ensure federal government could not disarm state militias; amici states do not endorse handgun ban; argues against incorporation]
American Bar Ass’n
[Argues the importance of stare decisis in case law; as case law declares the 2A pertains only to militia purposes (cites Miller, 1939), ruling that it protects individual rights violates the principle of standing case law and as such lower court’s ruling should be overturned; failure to do so would call into question the constitutionality of “established” gun control laws]
Brady Center
[2A protects ownership of firearms only in the context of the militia; 2A was not meant to protect private ownership of arms; this was settled in the Miller (1939) decision; right to be armed for self-defense is “dangerous”; legislature is best to decide firearms prohibitions, not the judiciary]
U.S. Department of Justice (this might be the most significant brief...certainly among the most significant)
[2A protects right of individuals unaffiliated with militia to possess firearms; prefatory language does not negate the operative guarantee; court below erred in applying a categorical standard by which to evaluate protected arms/rights; argues that current federal gun control is established and important – SCOTUS decision should/must not be read as way to allow attack or invalidation of federal gun control legislation; banning NFA weapons is consistent with legitimate government interests; the issue of the scope of the 2A lacks case law and thus the issue should be remanded down the courts to flesh out detail and standards]
18 Members of Congress
[decision below read the 2A to create an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to militias; Miller is settled precedent in that 2A protects arms possession only in militia service; Note – these amici bring up incorporation but take no position regarding the question]
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
[the 2A has always been interpreted to permit governments to categorically prohibit particularly dangerous weapons; does not protect individual right to possess arms; handguns need to be prohibited because, in part, lots of black people use them to kill other black people]
Criminal Justice Professors
[bans on handguns are effective in reducing crime and violence – criminology studies have proven the DC ban has done so; effectiveness of DCs law would increase if surrounding states were to likewise ban handguns]
DA’s for SF, NY
[that the 2A does not restrain current gun control legislation, because A) 2A does not protect individual right, is not incorporated, and C) current restrictions are reasonable; that overruling the DC ban will have negative and unintended consequences]
American Academy of Pediatrics
[children are susceptible to injury or death due to handguns; thus, the ban should be upheld]
City of Chicago
[non-incorporation of 2A is settled law; 2A does not protect individual rights; if individual right, does not prohibit Chicago’s handgun ban (because of non-incorporation); Chicago is very concerned because her laws are very similar to DCs]
Winkler, Chemerinsky
[if the 2A is ruled to protect an individual right, it must outline standards of review for reasonable regulation; reasonableness review standard is appropriate because gun control schemes are unquestionably legitimate means of enhancing public safety; claims the SCOTUS has held that the predicate for heightened scrutiny is absent; in the event of incorporation, any 2A standard more demanding than reasonableness review will [unacceptably] burden the states with litigation challenging prior convictions for weapons offenses; right to bear arms should be regulated as is the right to “property”]
American Public Health Ass’n
[firearms profoundly and negatively affect public health; social cost of firearms in society is high; public health approach is needed regarding gun violence – which basically reasons that violent crime is epidemic, guns cause this epidemic, thus, guns in society are an unacceptable cost to society]
Appleseed Center, et al.
[assumes (only, I think, for purposes of the brief) that individual right exists; court should allow local, elected officials to decide how to regulate firearms according to their particular needs (because this is the democratic way); under any appropriate conception of reasonableness, DCs ban is reasonable]
Violence Policy Center
[if the SCOTUS rules individual right, they must make this right subject to reasonable restrictions; DCs ban is reasonable because handguns are uniquely lethal and dangerous, and have (even) evolved to become more so since DCs ban was passed; handguns are less effective than other firearms for self-defense]
Cities
[gun violence is very bad; major cities bear the brunt of this badness and violence (argue urban v. rural); firearm regulation a critical aspect of cities’ valid and reasonable public safety measures; 2A protections apply only to federal governments, not city governments]
History Professors
[argue that evidence from the ratification debates clearly signify that the 2A was not meant to protect the rights of individuals to possess arms; any right to arms is certainly not a fundamental right]
Linguistics Professors
[militia clause is defined as an “absolute construction” or an “absolute clause”; it means that “because (and only because) the militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; thus, the linguistics of the amendment dictate that right to arms is wholly restricted by the militia clause]
Mike OTDP
Member
Nice work.
As I mentioned, these arguments have more than a passing resemblance to those defending segregation and other "Jim Crow" laws.
I hope the Heller team makes that point.
As I mentioned, these arguments have more than a passing resemblance to those defending segregation and other "Jim Crow" laws.
I hope the Heller team makes that point.
wacki
Member
There seems to be a lot of big organizations defending DC. So who all are defending heller?
wacki
Member
This is classic. I love it how they can so fervently attack guns but totally ignore far more dangerous things to children like buckets of water.
madmike
Member
Not only Jim Crow, but there's another relevant fact in the US Tax Code.
I'll need to get with a local law prof, but how does one go about submitting a brief?
I'll need to get with a local law prof, but how does one go about submitting a brief?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
