K-Romulus
Member
TRlaintiff's initial argument
Here is the plaintiff's initial go-round. They went first, then DC, then the PL had a 3-min rebuttal. I may not get it all up tonight. This is pretty rough, but you will be able to get the gist of what happened.
Before Judges Griffith, Henderson, and Silberman
“JGR” = Judge Griffith
“JSI” = Judge Silberman
Gu = Alan Gura (Plaintiff’s lawyer)
Kim = ___ Kim (DC lawyer)
Appellant/Plaintiff's Oral Argument:
Gu: 2Amt means ordinary handguns are allowed to be kept in the home, this is a narrow cast that will not be groundbreaking; the case is against prohibition, not against regulation
JGR: standing? How is this different from the Seegars and Navegar cases? Isn’t the plaintiff Heller in this case the only one who tried applying for a handgun permit?
Gu: actual denial of permit in this case, not like those other cases
JSI: if one plaintiff has standing, does it matter about the others?
Gu: should not matter as long as one has actual standing
JSI: what do you mean by “function” firearms are prohibited?
Gu: trigger locks are not safe storage; plaintiff would not challenge a safety rule with exceptions, but only wants ability to have operational self-defense firearm
JSI: are you challenging the handgun prohibition or the no-loaded law?
Gu: both; challenging fact there is no allowance of either
JSI: have standing to challenge no-loaded law?
Gu: have standing because would run afoul of the law
JGR: what is the militia TODAY?
Gu: the people of the U.S.
JGR: what about “well regulated?”
Gu: that meant training
JGR: 200 years ago, it meant “state control”; “well regulated” is not the same as “militia”
Gu: back then, regulated meant trained; Harvard law journal article explained the concept, citation is 9 Harv. J. Pub. Pol. 559; read quotes from Oxford Eng. Dict.; we use the original meaning to interpret the Amendment as written; the Constitution protects the concept, not the term
JSI: Regulated = supplied?
Gu: cited the Militia Clause regarding government suppling private citizens
JGR: “security of a free state?” DC isn’t a state, right?
Gu: DC= Fed Govt; cases say Constitution was intended to constrain Fed govt; dictionary at the time said it meant “free society”
JGR: isn’t this a Federalism issue with the 2d Amt?
Gu: Constitution only limited the Fed govt at the founding
JGR: what about “security of a free state?”
Gu: if disarmed, people would not be able to check government, repel invaders; mentions Judge Kozinski (9th Cir) and his “doomsday provision” comment; states at the signing of Constitution demanded RKBA clause as a last-ditch remedy for the people
JSI: assuming individual right; p.16 of brief says court does not have to find it is a “fundamental” right; p.31 of brief says law should be “narrowly tailored”; isn’t that same as strict scrutiny?
Gu: trigger lock law = ban on functional firearms in home; prohibition is more broad than mere regulation
JSI: rational basis argument? DC’s basis for the handgun ban isn’t rational because of crime?
Gu: we don’t ban all contracts, only the illegal ones
JSI: Miller says can ban shotguns?
Gu: Miller said only some firearms were outside Constitutional protection, like bazookas
JSI: why not bazookas?
Gu: Miller put out 2-part test: 1) type of ordinary and common use, and 2) military or common defense usefulness; bazookas fail first part of test
JSI: DC’s unloaded law illegal for handguns if they were allowed to be owned?
Gu: if the safe storage law had exceptions, it would be permissable; not what DC has now
*end PL argument, 3min reserved for rebuttal*
Here is the plaintiff's initial go-round. They went first, then DC, then the PL had a 3-min rebuttal. I may not get it all up tonight. This is pretty rough, but you will be able to get the gist of what happened.
Before Judges Griffith, Henderson, and Silberman
“JGR” = Judge Griffith
“JSI” = Judge Silberman
Gu = Alan Gura (Plaintiff’s lawyer)
Kim = ___ Kim (DC lawyer)
Appellant/Plaintiff's Oral Argument:
Gu: 2Amt means ordinary handguns are allowed to be kept in the home, this is a narrow cast that will not be groundbreaking; the case is against prohibition, not against regulation
JGR: standing? How is this different from the Seegars and Navegar cases? Isn’t the plaintiff Heller in this case the only one who tried applying for a handgun permit?
Gu: actual denial of permit in this case, not like those other cases
JSI: if one plaintiff has standing, does it matter about the others?
Gu: should not matter as long as one has actual standing
JSI: what do you mean by “function” firearms are prohibited?
Gu: trigger locks are not safe storage; plaintiff would not challenge a safety rule with exceptions, but only wants ability to have operational self-defense firearm
JSI: are you challenging the handgun prohibition or the no-loaded law?
Gu: both; challenging fact there is no allowance of either
JSI: have standing to challenge no-loaded law?
Gu: have standing because would run afoul of the law
JGR: what is the militia TODAY?
Gu: the people of the U.S.
JGR: what about “well regulated?”
Gu: that meant training
JGR: 200 years ago, it meant “state control”; “well regulated” is not the same as “militia”
Gu: back then, regulated meant trained; Harvard law journal article explained the concept, citation is 9 Harv. J. Pub. Pol. 559; read quotes from Oxford Eng. Dict.; we use the original meaning to interpret the Amendment as written; the Constitution protects the concept, not the term
JSI: Regulated = supplied?
Gu: cited the Militia Clause regarding government suppling private citizens
JGR: “security of a free state?” DC isn’t a state, right?
Gu: DC= Fed Govt; cases say Constitution was intended to constrain Fed govt; dictionary at the time said it meant “free society”
JGR: isn’t this a Federalism issue with the 2d Amt?
Gu: Constitution only limited the Fed govt at the founding
JGR: what about “security of a free state?”
Gu: if disarmed, people would not be able to check government, repel invaders; mentions Judge Kozinski (9th Cir) and his “doomsday provision” comment; states at the signing of Constitution demanded RKBA clause as a last-ditch remedy for the people
JSI: assuming individual right; p.16 of brief says court does not have to find it is a “fundamental” right; p.31 of brief says law should be “narrowly tailored”; isn’t that same as strict scrutiny?
Gu: trigger lock law = ban on functional firearms in home; prohibition is more broad than mere regulation
JSI: rational basis argument? DC’s basis for the handgun ban isn’t rational because of crime?
Gu: we don’t ban all contracts, only the illegal ones
JSI: Miller says can ban shotguns?
Gu: Miller said only some firearms were outside Constitutional protection, like bazookas
JSI: why not bazookas?
Gu: Miller put out 2-part test: 1) type of ordinary and common use, and 2) military or common defense usefulness; bazookas fail first part of test
JSI: DC’s unloaded law illegal for handguns if they were allowed to be owned?
Gu: if the safe storage law had exceptions, it would be permissable; not what DC has now
*end PL argument, 3min reserved for rebuttal*
Last edited: