http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitioners-brief-in-dc-guns-case-now-available/
Haven't read it yet. I foresee it to be quite comical.
Haven't read it yet. I foresee it to be quite comical.
DC Brief Released!
- Thread starter kurtmax
- Start date
- Status
So, their arguments are:
We read the second amendment differently (we went to DC public schools).
Second amendment does not apply to the citizens of DC because we are not a state.
Our (total ban, I mean) restrictions are reasonable.
We read the second amendment differently (we went to DC public schools).
Second amendment does not apply to the citizens of DC because we are not a state.
Our (total ban, I mean) restrictions are reasonable.
Their argument centers on the language of the 2nd Amendment being purely military, and that the right to keep and bear arms exists only within the context of a state-regulated militia, not the context of self-defense or the defense of one's home. If DC is not a state, and has no state militia, the 2nd doesn't apply, say they.
From what I've read, their opposition already has reams of documentary evidence to refute these assertions about the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and even the meaning of the words "militia" and "a free state" in 1787.
Various statutes regarding the "militia" were passed AFTER the Constitution was ratified, so it's hard to see how these statutes, to which the petitioners refer often, could define "militia" for the purposes of interpreting the Constitution.
I suppose there's little else they could argue, but I don't think that this argument based on "originalism" is a real winner, due to the significant contrary written documentation of the amendment's "original meaning."
From what I've read, their opposition already has reams of documentary evidence to refute these assertions about the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and even the meaning of the words "militia" and "a free state" in 1787.
Various statutes regarding the "militia" were passed AFTER the Constitution was ratified, so it's hard to see how these statutes, to which the petitioners refer often, could define "militia" for the purposes of interpreting the Constitution.
I suppose there's little else they could argue, but I don't think that this argument based on "originalism" is a real winner, due to the significant contrary written documentation of the amendment's "original meaning."
You are right, pretty comical.
My history books must be broken, that's pretty much the opposite of how I read American History.
The whole thing is just silly. They argue, as usual, the original citizens were "required" to keep and bear these arms for military purposes.
If it was a REQUIREMENT then why is it listed in the Bill of RIGHTS.
Crazy or not though it's the standard argument that's been made for many many years.
Start praying for the Supremes to be guided to the right decision.
federal what?
one of their less abstract diversions/perversions
Fourth, the majority below also emphasized that the Second Amendment protects a “pre-existing right” and that guns were used in the founding era for pri-vate purposes. PA20a-22a. There is no persuasive reason, however, to believe that the Amendment pro-tects all such uses, rather than retaining that role for the common law or state constitutions.
huh? did these twits read the Federalist Papers or Common Sense?
/sarc
nevermind they feellll so bad their rules were tossed.
hmm, yup it protects a preexisiting right but that just doesn't matter. We must have oppression/rules/restrictions
whatdoya mean 'shall not be infringed'
r
one of their less abstract diversions/perversions
Fourth, the majority below also emphasized that the Second Amendment protects a “pre-existing right” and that guns were used in the founding era for pri-vate purposes. PA20a-22a. There is no persuasive reason, however, to believe that the Amendment pro-tects all such uses, rather than retaining that role for the common law or state constitutions.
huh? did these twits read the Federalist Papers or Common Sense?
/sarc
nevermind they feellll so bad their rules were tossed.
hmm, yup it protects a preexisiting right but that just doesn't matter. We must have oppression/rules/restrictions
whatdoya mean 'shall not be infringed'
r
True enough.
The Bill of Rights guarantees due process, but it does not specify that anyone shall be required to serve on a jury.
Further, the origins of the Bill of Rights indicate that the phrase "to bear arms" did not imply military use of arms. The English Bill of Rights from which it was derived contains these words: "freedom to bear arms for self-defence".
That's what I mean when I say that DC has not picked a winning argument by basing their arguments, as they have, on the assertion that the word choice and cultural context mean that the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized, state-run, highly-regimented military service.
I like this part:
So... long guns have to be disassembled or locked, and no handguns allowed whatsoever does not sound like "a law that purported to eliminate that right—for instance, by banning all gun possession, or allowing only a firearm that was so ineffective that the law ef-fected functional disarmament"?
Whatever.
DC Brief pp43-44 said:
So... long guns have to be disassembled or locked, and no handguns allowed whatsoever does not sound like "a law that purported to eliminate that right—for instance, by banning all gun possession, or allowing only a firearm that was so ineffective that the law ef-fected functional disarmament"?
Whatever.
The business about DC not being a state leads me to expect one of those technically favorable but "narrowly drawn" verdicts that will do nobody outside DC any good in case law.
Armed Bear
+1
much better summary of the DC 'problem' with 18th Century Legal Precedent
pardon 17th Century (1689 English Declaration of Rights)
+1
much better summary of the DC 'problem' with 18th Century Legal Precedent
pardon 17th Century (1689 English Declaration of Rights)
Is it just me, or is there nothing in this brief that wasn't in any of DC's prior briefs? Same drivel, new packaging.
I don't expect a verdict that suddenly wipes out all gun control laws.
However, if a precedent is established that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, then it will be possible for the following cases to come before Federal Courts:
1. 14th Amendment incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
2. "Functional disarmament" arguments.
For example, California's 10-round magazine limit doesn't prevent me from keeping or bearing arms. However, it might be "functionally disarming", especially by the "military weapons in common use" standard. Ditto for restrictive state laws that don't allow certain common firearms (Glocks in MA, standard AR's in CA) to be sold.
I do not expect this court to give these decisions away without any additional cases, though they probably could if they wanted to. It's against Roberts' beliefs about the Court's role in our 3-branch government.
However, if the basic meaning of the 2nd Amendment is established, it provides a basis for fighting laws that "functionally disarm" citizens.
As an aside, though, it's interesting to see DC's "liberal" attorneys making arguments that, whether they're right or wrong, take "originalism" for granted. We've come a long way in a (relatively) short time.
Yeah, their first 20+ pages were based loosely in selective originalist writings from Blackstone/Federalist and other 18th century writings, but the closing dozen or so pages were nothing but new-age "but it's for the children!" drivel still.
Funny to see them use a 2006 Guns & Ammo article for their defense though.
By selectively quoting, they're asking for some serious mockery from Scalia and maybe even others. And they will receive it.
SCOTUS doesn't like that sort of thing. I think they find it inappropriate and even a bit insulting, whether it advocates social policy that appeals to the left OR the right.
I managed to force my way through a few pages of it. I find it ironic that while using the argument that DC isnt a state, they rely upon state case law as justification.
Ok - maybe that isnt too odd, but it just strikes me as funny.
The holes in their argument are large enough to drive a truck through. I can see some of the justices having a field day ripping DC's attorneys a new one.
Ok - maybe that isnt too odd, but it just strikes me as funny.
The holes in their argument are large enough to drive a truck through. I can see some of the justices having a field day ripping DC's attorneys a new one.
Armed Bear
I was thinking
'Selectively misquoting' might be a more appropriate description
and Scalia will horsewhip them for it.
Thomas may actually hand/sell them some rope before he hangs them out to dry.
I'd love to hear them discuss how the 13, 14 and 15 amendments don't apply to DC
and which amendment was it that gave women the right to vote?
Ginsburg may have some rather terse questions on what limits apply to the constitution/amendments vs DC
r
I was thinking
'Selectively misquoting' might be a more appropriate description
and Scalia will horsewhip them for it.
Thomas may actually hand/sell them some rope before he hangs them out to dry.
I'd love to hear them discuss how the 13, 14 and 15 amendments don't apply to DC
and which amendment was it that gave women the right to vote?
Ginsburg may have some rather terse questions on what limits apply to the constitution/amendments vs DC
r
Very true. I hadn't thought about that enough.
What's interesting about this is that "liberals" have something to lose by ruling in DC's favor, too.
Not an expert, but I was listening to a news report on Ginsburg's dissent on a Supreme Court decision that went against extending sex-discrimination in employment lawsuits. The news claimed she was saying that the other justices didn't understand how badly this would affect women in the workplace.
In other words she was concerned about the social effects of the decision rather than looking at the actual wording of the law. If this is true it would seem she would be highly susceptible to irrelevant "it's for the children" arguments of social utility.
Is this accurate? Anybody have any idea how she would rule on Heller?
In other words she was concerned about the social effects of the decision rather than looking at the actual wording of the law. If this is true it would seem she would be highly susceptible to irrelevant "it's for the children" arguments of social utility.
Is this accurate? Anybody have any idea how she would rule on Heller?
Last edited:
Her dissent is not necessarily akin to "it's for the children".
There are other forms of utilitarian arguments that are quite different. They can be "common sense" arguments about whether a law really follows the Constitution.
For example, a court might rule that a legal limit on sound volume for speakers at a large political rally is about the rights of nearby residents to enjoy their private property and doesn't limit the freedom of speech. A dissenting judge might argue that, since only the first ten rows could hear the speakers, it really does act to limit people of a certain point of view to communicate their political beliefs, and therefore it DOES limit free speech.
There are other forms of utilitarian arguments that are quite different. They can be "common sense" arguments about whether a law really follows the Constitution.
For example, a court might rule that a legal limit on sound volume for speakers at a large political rally is about the rights of nearby residents to enjoy their private property and doesn't limit the freedom of speech. A dissenting judge might argue that, since only the first ten rows could hear the speakers, it really does act to limit people of a certain point of view to communicate their political beliefs, and therefore it DOES limit free speech.
MatthewVanitas
Member
So she could have argued that upholding the law's limits on extending the lawsuits could have violated the constitional ban on discrimination, for example? The news report didn't really have her saying that, it was her complaining about how the other judges didn't understand how hard this would make it for women in the workplace, but to be fair it was a five minute (if that) newsbite.
How do we think Ginsburg, and the other justives, will rule on Heller? Any idea?
How do we think Ginsburg, and the other justives, will rule on Heller? Any idea?
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
There it is. In a nutshell.
While it is true that government officials, both elected and appointed, thought (and wrote) differently 215 years earlier (slavery, native, negro and women's rights come to mind), I fail to understand how one logically or legally substitutes the words "...government in providing for public safety" for "...militia being necessary for a free state".
...premised upon reasoning with no basis in law or logic. Works for me.
By their nature, notebook computers are easy to steal and conceal, and especially effective for breaking into networks and looking at child porn.
I say we ban notebook computers!
Looks like their own citizens like to carry firearms. Must be just the politicians against it....
- Status
