Quantcast

Heller links and updates

Discussion in 'Legal' started by txgho1911, Nov 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    Please leave a thread for current and related new links. Currently the discussion is scattered between 56 threads here on THR alone.

    Please post valid and related links to the case. Please try not to repost links listed in the thread.
    There are 56 discussion threads open. http://thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=3145365

    http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ is the RKBA case lawyers status, history, rollup of what is going on in this case currently.

    Supreme court docket website. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html
    Where you can search for docket 07-290. This will find the petition and the cross petition.

    Looking for the anti citys/states brief in support of DC.
    Ha I posted it in another thread.
    http://www.donath.org/Heller_NY_amicus_brief_cert_stage.pdf

    Recent interview of Levy on NPR not listed as of this posting @ dcguncase.
    http://www.here-now.org/shows/2007/11/20071113_9.asp

    I requested Art to sticky one thread of links and updates. Please keep it kleen.

    Added links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

    For general reading on scotus issues. Some opinion pieces are posted here of some interest.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  2. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    thank you for organizing what should be a sticky

    Good work.
    I am disappointed by todays news, imo they are going for a very narrow decision.
    I pray that it is the opposite, and will be very angry if they screw us yet again.
     
  3. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    I struck gold I tellya. DC blog posted by ex prosecutor

    http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/10/gun_control_and_1.html

    First comment and authors response included as very relevant.

    October 25, 2007
    Gun control and the District of Columbia
    posted by Jennifer Collins

    The Supreme Court should be deciding in the next couple of weeks whether to grant cert in the case challenging the District of Columbia's law in essence banning residents from possessing handguns. (Michael O'Shea has done an admirable job over at Prawfs collecting various materials related to the cert petition). As a former assistant U.S. attorney in D.C., I've been following the case with interest, and I do expect that the Court will grant cert. I think it's worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it's used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be "debriefed" about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It's pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime. These functions may not be relevant to the question whether the statute is constitutional, but it's worth acknowledging that invalidating the gun ban will surely have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting in the District.

    Posted by Jennifer Collins at October 25, 2007 12:17 PM
    Trackback Pings

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2640.
    Comments

    "The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason."

    This is an interesting statement coming from a former prosecutor. Frankly, I think the effect of removing the gun ban is positive if it eliminates a "mechanism" with which the government can "lock up" citizens who have not committed a crime (aside from the gun possession at issue) beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of the civil liberty issues arising in the context of national security are a result of the federal government violating the rights of those it “perceives” as terrorists. Until reasonable doubt is replaced by “perception” in our justice system, I think prosecutors should rely on more "laws" and fewer "mechanisms."

    Posted by: anon at October 25, 2007 02:40 PM

    I was not offering an opinion on the advisability of these practices, but simply noting that they exist and will obviously be affected by the outcome of this litigation. Indeed, I think the length of the potential jail sentence that is attached to gun possession in D.C. is quite troubling. I will note that the office was indeed relying on a law that was valid at the time, however, even if one disagrees with the existence of that law as a policy or legal matter.

    Posted by: Jennifer at October 25, 2007 03:37 PM
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2007
  4. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    From Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog (hosted by Akin & Gump, the firm that represents D.C. in Heller):

    It looks like counsel for both sides will be present at the conference as well. From what I understand this is fairly unusual, so could be an interesting Tuesday.
     
  5. woerm

    woerm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Glitter Gulch, LSR
    counsel at conference?

    Uh, can anyone say what it means when both counsels are present at the SCOTUS conference on a case?:confused:

    I don't know how often this happens, does anyone have a record of a prior instance of this business?

    I'm at a loss, isn't the whole briefing process about clearing/setting the stage for 'oral' arguments in a 'public setting' *after* the SCOTUS decides on cert? Or am I missing something here?

    why is this business being done *in camera* (in private/closed) not in public?

    help.

    r

    business here doesn't mean monkey business, *yet* I'm still Opti the Mystic here but verry confused about the opposing counsels getting called in to the conference.
     
  6. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Not sure why both counsel would be present; but it may have to do with the sides offering different questions. The Court may want to resolve those into a single question before they decide on cert.
     
  7. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
  8. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
  9. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    Outstanding. Lets pray we win.
     
  10. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,796
    This is the best article I've seen so far.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
     
  11. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
  12. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
  13. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
  14. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
  15. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Want a front row seat for the oral arguments for Heller in March?

    Check out http://www.oyez.com/

    MP3s of Supreme Court oral arguments, transcripts, briefs, etc. Goes back several years as well if you would like to research past cases.
     
  16. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    No link, just got the announcement:

    Nixon to Join Attorneys General on U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Support of Second Amendment Rights

    Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon announced today that he will work with attorneys general from other states to file a brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s gun control laws. Those laws essentially ban private handgun ownership and require that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and broken down or fitted with a trigger lock. When the Supreme Court takes a case, it allows interested parties not directly involved to file amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs.

    “This case represents the first time in nearly 70 years that the Court will directly examine the Second Amendment,” Nixon said. “We have an opportunity here to get a court decision solidifying what most Americans already believe: that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms.”

    Nixon noted that not all rights are absolute, and that he supports Missouri’s laws, including those that prevent criminals from obtaining handguns and enhance criminal penalties for crimes committed using deadly weapons.

    Nixon will be working with his colleagues in other states to present the Court with historical and legal analysis supporting the position that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

    “I believe our Founders intended the Second Amendment to extend to all law-abiding citizens, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve this debate,” Nixon said.

    The case before the Supreme Court is District of Columbia v. Heller, Case No. 07-290. The Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the spring and issue a decision before June 30, 2008.

    In 2004, Nixon successfully defended Missouri’s concealed carry law before the Missouri Supreme Court, establishing the Missouri General Assembly’s power to permit concealed weapons in Missouri.
     
  17. LoneStranger

    LoneStranger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    Kansas City, KS
    Recognizing that one side is supposed to talk, submit briefs, before the other can anyone give this nonlegal person some dates for when we might see the various briefs that will be submitted?

    I would really like to read them before the oral arguements.
     
  18. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    I was off by a few days. Here is the (corrected) time table:

    D.C. has 45 days to file its brief - Friday, January 4th (Rule 25.1). Respondents will have 30 days to file their brief - Monday, February 4th (Rule 25.2). Reply Brief will be due 30 days after that - Wednesday, March 5th (Rule 25.3).

    Applications to extend time to file may be filed up to 10 days before the filing deadline (Rule 30.2).

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

    Oral arguments will be scheduled by the Court Clerk, not less than 2 weeks after the last date of filling (Rule 27.1).
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2007
  19. waynesan

    waynesan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    141
    Location:
    TN
    Virginia Attorney General Files Friend-of-the Court On Our Side

    http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7515111

    Should Americans be allowed to have guns? Virginia's Attorney General says they should.

    Bob McDonnell is supporting a federal court decision that banning guns is unconstitutional. The case originated in Washington, DC where handguns have been banned for decades.

    Now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. The court's ruling will have national implications.

    McDonnel says if justices base their ruling on the intentions of the authors of the Constitution, they'll conclude that owning a gun is an individual right.

    McDonnell says "Because at the time of its writing everybody was a member of a militia and today everybody potentially could be called up in some capacity to help defend their property, their person or their nation."

    Virginia is the third state to sign on to the friend-of-the-court brief.

    The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in March and should make a decision by June. The case marks the first time the court has reviewed the original intent of the Second Amendment in 70 years.
     
  20. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    DC to file 15K word brief by friday

    (streaming news story)
    http://video.nbc4.com/player/?id=200161

    The DC appeal team has been shaken up by the new DC "AG," a guy who PO'd the last AG (who quit) by overstepping his authority as the Mayor's Counsel and trying to run the city.

    Here is an updated writeup on the change (ETA:updated 2:43pm):
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010201116_pf.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2008
  21. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,151
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
  22. madmike

    madmike Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    In a well-equipped suburban bunker
    Oh, it's potentially a win/win.

    If they decide DC can't ban guns because of 2A, it's a win. It doesn't matter what limits DC puts in place. At that point, it's a "civil right" and it can be fought.

    Currently, they could ban all guns in jurisdiction after jurisdiction.

    A decision for 2A means worst case is something like Australia--bolt actions and revolvers. Sucky, but infinitely better than NO GUNS.

    It gives us a starting point to argue against HATE GROUPS like Brady and their ATTEMPT TO LIMIT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS AS A PEOPLE!:D

    If they decide that DC is exempt because it is not a state, I will move to DC the next day.










    Because that would also mean INCOME TAX does not apply, and I would file a class action suit, retroactive forever, for all residents of the District:evil:
     
  23. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
  24. westhope

    westhope Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    Southern Minnesota
    When are the other briefs due?
     
  25. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    Levy brief is expected Feb 3. As per a response received in a DOJ thread.
    DOJ submitted a brief backing the individual right. It also contradictorily backs DC in this case.
    http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=330547
    Also listed are many new briefs for petitioner listed.

    All the kings men and all the kings horses are sticking to the notion of how lovely are the kings new clothes.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice