Heller links and updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmph. Personally, I think if Dellinger makes that argument, he's going to lose badly. There IS no right to be a juror...as is demonstrated every working day in the jury selection process.

I'm not happy about the Solicitor General getting an additional 15 minutes...and hope that SCOTUS puts him on the griddle. But it's worth remembering that the SG's brief accepts the individual rights argument - and I would bet long odds that the first question put will be whether or not the SG considers that the DC gun ban would meet the lower standard of review they are asking for.
 
LEAA joins with other law enforcement groups and representatives to support Second Amendment in the Supreme Court 'Heller' Case! See the video clip at:

Video Clip

As you know by now, the case is the District of Columbia v. Heller and the case is before the United States Supreme Court! Briefs have been filed and Oral Arguments are scheduled for March 18th. A decision could come as fast as sometime this summer! But just today, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on this case that "dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates" {see details below}.

To learn about this Law Enforcement Amicus Brief please watch -- and share with others -- the clip of LEAA's Ted Deeds appearing on NRANews.com to explain law enforcement rallying in support of the Second Amendment and against gun control as "crime control":

Video Clip

To review this Amicus Brief in full please see:

Brief

Along with this brief, 45 other briefs on 'our side' were filed. All totalled, 46 briefs argued in favor of the Supreme Court supporting self-defense and upholding the Second Amendment and the other side had 20 briefs opposing us.

LEAA was not the only law enforcement voice to argue on our side. Counting all the briefs on our side we had 92 different law enforcement voices on our side! -- We believe this is the largest unified law enforcement voice in support of the Second Amendment in our nation's history! Those voices included:

· 11 LEO groups representing 10's of thousands of officers from all across America,
· 31 state's 'Top Cops' {Attorneys General},
· 38 Prosecutors, DA's or CLEO's {Chief Law Enforcement Officers},
· 12 United States Attorney's General, Senior DOJ Officials, AUSA's {Assistant United States Attorneys} (including one from DC) and Federal Judges.

That is a total of 92 LEO voices representing literally, every level from tens of thousands of street cops, to CLEO's, Prosecutors, Judges, State AG's, United States Federal Law Enforcement/Department of Justice leaders.

Now comes the bad news.

Today the Supreme Court issued the following order, "The motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument, and, in the alternative, for enlargement of time for oral argument is denied. The motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument and for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted."

What this ruling means:

as explained by the a blog at Legal Times, whose excerpts follow: "...the Supreme Court dashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who hoped to have two lawyers and additional time arguing their cause before the Supreme Court ..... the Court denied the motion of Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz for argument time on the side of Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, who has argued the pro-Second Amendment position from the start of the case.

But the Court did agree to give Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to argue, in addition to the 30 minutes for each side in the case. The Court's action can be read as a small but not insignificant victory for supporters of D.C.'s handgun control ordinance at issue in the case.

...... While Clement supports an "individual right" view of the Second Amendment, he advocates a standard of review that critics say will allow too many gun regulations to stand. Clement also urged vacating and remanding the lower court ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case, the first ever to strike down a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds. Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers, who will argue in defense of the D.C. handgun ban.... supported Clement's request for added argument time.

It is very common for the Court to say yes to a request from the solicitor general for argument time as amicus curiae no matter where he stands. ......
So, even though Clement's brief lends support to both sides, the net effect of today's Court action is that the justices will hear 45 minutes of advocacy from those who want the lower court ruling eliminated, and 30 minutes from those who want it upheld."

We need your support!

The battle lines have been drawn. LEAA needs to get the word out that America's law enforcement community is speaking with one overwhelmingly united voice in favor of the Second Amendment! We need your help to continue....

We can't fight or communicate without your financial help! Log on and contribute $50.00, $75.00, $100.00 or whatever you can. Mail a check or money order TODAY. Call our office and contribute over the phone.... but take action NOW, today!

Contibute

With your support we can fight; we can continue these updates! Contribute today -- Share this message with others and get them to contribute to the fight too!

IF we fail to act, if we fail to make our case before the Supreme Court, if, God forbid, the Court rules against the Second Amendment we may never have another chance in our lifetimes to 'make it right'.

Seldom does it come down to all or nothing but depending on what the Court decides, this could be that time!

To review ALL briefs filed in this case, go to: All Briefs

To reach LEAA by mail:

LEAA
5538 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
 
Dellinger is tackling preparations for the March 18 oral arguments with typical gusto, immersing himself in the rich history of the Second Amendment. That history leads him to acknowledge that it does announce an individual right to bear arms. But, he says, it is a right that is activated only within a state militia — in the same way that an individual right to be a juror, for example, only has meaning when joined by others to form a jury.
Click to expand...

As someone already noted, there's no right to be a juror.

Additionally, the States are prohibited from arming people without federal authority. Taken that way, it reads, "You have a right to join the Army," which is ludicrously stupid.

I wouldn't give too much credence to the SG's additional time, and TX being declined. The declination could simply mean, "We already understand your position." As noted, the SG is usually granted the courtesy of additional time.

And it could just mean they want to mock and humiliate him on the record;)
 
ANJRPC files brief

ANJRPC files brief
ANJRPC is one of four State Firearm Associations that organized a coalition of more than 40 similar groups to file a collective “friend of the court” brief in the historic pending U.S. Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller. That case, originally brought to overturn Washington, DC’s handgun ban, brings before the highest court in the land for the first time the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The brief can be viewed online here.

In recent years, anti-gun politicians, academics, and activist judges have attempted to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it protects only the collective right of states to maintain militias, and that individuals have no rights under the Second Amendment. Some courts have adopted this twisted interpretation recently.

The brief filed on behalf of State Firearm Associations is one of many other briefs filed by other interested parties to weigh in on the historic case. Together with the other briefs, the State Firearm Association brief forms one piece of a much larger puzzle, which collectively represents the interests of the entire Second Amendment community. The entire set of case filings can be viewed online here.

The coalition of State Firearm Associations was led by the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA), the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA), the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, and ANJRPC. The initiative was begun by Jim Dark and Tom King, the respective leaders of TSRA and NYSRPA.
Click to expand...
 
I've been reading the briefs. Which briefs in support of Respondent Heller provide the best responses to the brief of the ABA? (I am not and never have been a member of the ABA).
 
Recommended reading: The Amicus brief filed by Academics for the Second Amendment. A truly excellent brief!
 
Audiotape of gun case out early
Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 5:38 pm | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0) | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will release the audiotapes of the oral argument in the Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), shortly after the argument concludes on Tuesday, March 18. The case is scheduled for one hour and 15 minutes, with each side having 30 minutes and the U.S. Solicitor General having 15. The Court’s press release can be found here. C-SPAN cable network sought the early release; the network’s news release Tuesday can be found here.

With the case scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., the hearing should run at least until 11:15 or so; the Chief Justice, however, may allow counsel additional time as the hearing proceeds; there is no other case scheduled for argument that day.

This is the third case this Term for which the Court has released the audiotapes on a same-day basis: the other two involved the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and constitutional issues surrounding the use of lethal injections in death-row executions.

In addition to the prompt release of the audiotapes in the D.C. gun case, the Court, as usual, will release the written transcript of the argument by early afternoon, at the latest, that day.

This blog will provide links to the audio feeds, first on a streaming basis and then in a format that can be downloaded. The blog also will post the written transcript as soon as it becomes available.
 
Get ready for a server meltdown that day.
I suggest someone look into providing a torrent for that file so the rest of us can facilitate distribution.
 
FWIW, the official DC response is up at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/07-290rb.pdf

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but a quick skim did not appear to show anything novel.

A more detailed reading didn't show much, either. They spend a lot of effort trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment protects a state's right to form a militia, and a bit on an argument that DC's broad gun ban is still Constutitional.

Interestingly, much of the brief treats the Solicitor-General's brief as being supportive of Heller's briefs.
 
Last edited:
Their argument is so full of holes that they have a hard time keeping it straight. The concede in several places that "the militia" is virtually the same as "the people," and that the RKBA is a pre-existing right. They argue that the militia was not supposed to stop tyranny, but in another place argue that this is the purpose of the state militias. What a mess.
 
Green-Griz That statement may be the clearest short summery to how the other side argues the gun issue. I could say you have recapped the entire DC argument for the petitioners and supporters briefs.
 
I can't decide how I want this to turn out. If they interpret correctly, we would be able to own any type of weapon and they will simply add a new ammendment canceling the 2nd just like they did with prohibition.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I am almost 100% sure that the SCOTUS can't make ammendments.
 
Did anyone else watch the C-SPAN segment this evening at 7:00 pm EST on the Heller case? I missed most of it but caught the end. C-SPAN also said that next Saturday, 03/22, at 7:00 pm EST they would be airing the VIDEO of the oral arguments of the Heller case.

W00T!!!
 
Shanda Smith: From the Washingtonian article above.
“If the Supreme Court lifts the gun ban, you are going to have a serious war,” she says. “Everybody will think they can defend themselves. There will be more shootings, more killings.”
Click to expand...


O, No!!!!!!!!!!!!

That would be horrible.
 
Located at: http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=562097083
Looks like info to procure the video. I see no way to replay this online. It may be posted elsewhere.
Found it: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=204268-1


Forum
The Second Amendment in the Supreme Court
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 204268 - 03/13/2008 - 1:00 - $29.95

Bogus, Carl T. Professor, Roger Williams University, School of Law
Lithwick, Dahlia Senior Editor, Slate.com
Kopel, David B. Research Director, Independence Institute
Payton, John President, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Board of Directors

A panel discussion was held on the U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which concerns the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s ban on the private possession of handguns. Experts from a variety of perspectives discussed whether the Second Amendment protects only militia-related rights or the rights of private individuals, the appropriate standard for reviewing gun control legislation and the potential legal and policy implications of the first Court decision in this area in 68 years. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument on this case on March 18, 2008. Ms. Lithwick moderated.

This event, "The Second Amendment in the Supreme Court," was held at the National Press Club.
 
A variety of perspectives? Kopel is the only one on that panel who supports the Second Amendment. Lithwick isn't actively hostile; but doesn't support it and the other two panelists submitted briefs or research in opposition to an individual rights interpretation.
 
I never said this was correctly labeled. Listening to the argument they make is scary how they rewrite the BOR and COTUS.
 
FYI...

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Stephen P. Wenger" <[email protected]>
Date: March 17, 2008 5:41:30 PM EDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: DUF Afternoon Update, 03-17-08
Reply-To: [email protected]

Live Coverage of DC v. Heller Arguments Available Online Tomorrow:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncate...sblog-full-coverage-of-dc-guns-oral-argument/
--
Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY

Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.

http://www.spw-duf.info
Click to expand...
 
Forum
The Second Amendment in the Supreme Court
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)

Airing again now, 9 am CT on C-SPAN

It was pretty weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Gun Cases pending in Court links?
Replies
0
Views
306
Texasgrillchef
T
M
  • Locked
Sign the Petition against the Assault Weapons Ban!
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
15K
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
For everyone that was asking, you can now download my Note on SSRN... Link inside!
Replies
21
Views
1K
Rmeju
R
S
  • Locked
NPS ban repeal update
Replies
4
Views
553
LAR-15
L
2
  • Locked
Briefs Filed in Support of Silveira v. Lockyer
Replies
1
Views
552
Brett Bellmore
B
Back
Top