Amicus briefs supporting DC in Heller on line

[TexasRifleman]

There seems to be a lot of big organizations defending DC. So who all are defending heller?

Many of the states actually are. I know Texas AG has filed in both the previous case and will be with this one. Seems like someone posted that Virginia was doing the same.

NRA of course, SAF, probably some of the others.

 

[Bubbles]

I'll need to get with a local law prof, but how does one go about submitting a brief?

You're a little late to the party to submit one in Heller. Each side was limited to 20 briefs, and the attorneys get to pick who submits them for each side. I heard that Alan Gura was picky about who he chose, with organizations making complimentary arguments in their briefs.

Can't remember where I read it, but look for Heller's response and the subsequent amicus curaie briefs to be filed during the first week of February.

 

[everallm]

The one that suprises me most is the ABA, this means they don't want their members to partake of the undoubted banquet of legal activity that the SCOTUS decision will bring.

Is there a RICO or restraint of trade case here......

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Could we file a gun owners brief?

--

err, didnt see the last few posts which sort of answer this. sorry

 

[Mike OTDP]

I'm happy with Gura & Co. mustering the arguments.

That's one thing about the DOJ submission...it ate up a billet on the opposition side for a brief arguing that the 2nd amdnement should be recognized as protecting an individual right.

 

[DonP]

The DC filing and amicae briefs come first, since they are the ones appealing the lower court decision. Basically the "complainer" has to show their cards first.

Now Gura and his team can make any neccessary revisions of their brief, based on what the DC people and any "significant" amicae briefs (e.g. the Solicitor General etc.) Organizations and individuals, that Gura and his legal team have decided to accept Amicae briefs from, can also do some fine tuning on their briefs potentially addressing specific legal issues included in the briefs. (e.g. Not responding to the Brady's "Hosing down" kind of overheated rhetoric, but real legal issues and precedents.

Just to keep thing straight. The next big date is February 4th with the Heller Amicae briefs to follow shortly (1 to 2 weeks).

Direct from the Gura & Possessky PLLC law firm website:

"January 11th, 2008 by Alan Gura

Amicus Curiae briefs for the city have been filed and are now available on our filings page.

Next event:

Our brief, February 4."

 

[Mike OTDP]

Yup. And it eases one worry that I had - that SCOTUS would be swayed by the sheer volume of briefs. If Gura is cherry-picking, the pro-Heller case will be a unified front of interlocking arguments.

 

[Al Norris]

The next big date is February 4th with the Heller Amicae briefs to follow shortly (1 to 2 weeks).

Amici briefs may be filed within 7 days after the brief for the party supported is filed (Rule 37.3(a))... Feb 11th at the latest.

 

[Titan6]

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]

Good summation... but...

*Sigh*

The sad part is this is probably seen as pro liberty by much of the conservative wing. This is a much bigger slice of pie than we are giving it credit for. The POTUS has come out right and said it loud and clear in the typical talking out of both side of your mouth fashion. He says it is a right, but the government can take it away any time... therefore it really is not right at all.

You can say whatever you want, so long as it isn't what we don't want you say.

It is either a right or it is not.

If it is a right then the law is invalid and possesion is allowed. There is no middle ground here. Predicatably the government has come down on the side of ... the government. The people have no voice at the DOJ and the president refuses to speak for them.

I also find it repugnent that everyone with an axe to grind wants to bring up arguements that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. I suppose they have as much of right to be heard as anyone but merely obsufacting the the case is disgusting. I wonder if the court will feel the same way? Otherwise we may be seeing the Dredd Scott of our day.