Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Amicus Briefs

Discussion in 'Legal' started by legaleagle_45, Jul 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    Amicus Briefs in support of a writ of cert filed in McDonald v Chicago. They include the one from the Cato Institute, one from 33 states and one from <gasp> California (signed by Jerry Brown, no lees). I have received the first two and I am awaiting the third. Hopefully I can succesfully attach them.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    Attached is the California amicus brief.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    Whilst very nice to see the California AG filing in support for incorporation, it has to be taken in context.

    The 9th Circuit has already ruled that 2A is incorporated as far as they are concerned so the AG going against it is not really on the cards.

    The brief has a substantial self serving element in that it prominently references the CA "approved" handgun registry. A registry that is under legal challenge and any ruling from the SC may be used to bolster CA's view that it is a "reasonable regulation". In addition they are being challenged on the recent Nordyke case ruling of what comprises a "sensitive" area that may prohibit firearms.
     
  4. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    It's an arbitrary restraint of trade, among other things. I'm not even sure that RKBA will be the most prominent argument in the case. That's a guess, though.

    But how can there be any guarantee that incorporation would help California's side?

    Without incorporation, there's no limit on what is "reasonable" because there's no limit on regulation. With it, the state might have to show how the "approved list" has some connection to "reasonable", not a very easy case to make. As a former resident, I'm pretty familiar with the list, and at least a good portion of the laws governing it have little or no connection to anything "reasonable", since it extorts money from gunmakers to keep their guns "approved", it requires features that don't exist (I don't think any LCI has met California's supposed requirements yet).

    I really wonder what sort of incorporation Moonbeam thinks would be more likely to uphold the ridiculous extortion that is the "list".
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  5. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,690
    Location:
    North Idaho
    Also Texas

    My wife has a contact affiliated with the Texas AG.

    She received this in her email this morning.


    I'm sure plenty of Texans also received this release.

     
  6. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    I don't understand this point. It would have been completely logical for the California AG to request that the Supreme Court take the case and rule against incorporation to free CA from the 9th Circuit's ruling. In fact, one week ago, I would expect that most people would have thought that California would go that route.

    What seems weird to me is that any state would request a federal court to impose restraints on the state's own powers.

    Now I think you're getting to the crux of the motivation for CA to file this brief. They've probably decided that they can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar, so to speak. The only reason to file the brief is if they have decided that incorporation is a foregone conclusion and they want to be on the "winning side" to help shape the Court's jurisprudence with regard to the scope of the RKBA.

    If CA stubbornly argued "our citizens have no RKBA" than all of its gun regulations would become suspect, because they were enacted under the assumption that there was no RKBA to be concerned about. However, if CA argues that "our position is that our citizens enjoy a federal RKBA" than it can argue that its legislature balanced that RKBA against the state's compelling interests when enacting its gun control regulations.
     
  7. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I read this somewhere where someone on this or "another" form stated exactly my thoughts on this California matter: These people are interpreting that DC v. Heller includes some sort of blessing for "reasonable restrictions" on the RKBA and believe this supposed "blessing" will allow them to continue with their "reasonable restrictions", only now those "reasonable restrictions" will have been sanctified by the Court. It appears they are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Fishermen for the truth they are not and it's to our benefit.

    Here's why:

    Scalia's Clever Cover On "Reasonable Restrictions"...

    In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

    This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

    Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

    (Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

    Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

    What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures ("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

    There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

    It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.​

    There is no lock on "reasonable restrictions" in DC v. Heller

    Woody
     
  8. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    Woody,

    I'm with you 100% on the "reasonable restrictions" fallacy. For whatever reason, tons of anti-gunners have jumped on this notion that Heller allows "reasonable" restrictions. If "reasonableness" was the test, than that would mean that the 2nd Amendment is subject to rational basis review, which was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. Any right protected by a "reasonableness" standard is no right at all.

    I'm also bothered by any test that depends on whether a certain restriction is "longstanding." If a restriction is a constitutional violation, it should not be grandfathered in just because the government has gotten away with it for a long period of time.

    I don't know why everybody seems to point the finger at Kennedy as the swing vote in Heller. Just because he is often the swing vote in other issues, doesn't mean he is the swing vote on an entirely different matter. For once, I'd like someone to point to any evidence which suggests that Kennedy is less supportive of 2nd Amendment rights than the other judges in the Heller majority. My opinion, based on the questions and comments from the judges during oral argument, is that Kennedy is a stronger supporter of 2nd Amendment rights than the other judges.
     
  9. green-grizzly

    green-grizzly Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    I too don't get why the "presumptively lawful" language gets people so uptight. The court has said many times that ALL acts of congress are "presumptively constitutional." It is certainly a presumption that can be rebutted.
     
  10. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    That's easy. Every lower court has regarded that language as binding on them whenever somebody challenges one of those "presumptively lawful" regulations.

    It's one thing to argue how that language should be construed, but the reality is that the language is being uniformly misused by lower courts.
     
  11. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Maybe so. I was just guessing.

    Woody
     
  12. RDak

    RDak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Michigan
    Here's what our Michigan Attorney General had to say in rebutting the rabidly liberal, anti-gun Detroit Free Press (editor's staff) editorial: (He signed on to the NRA Brief for the Chicago case.)



    We've got a great AG here in Michigan!!! And our current govenor hasn't been too bad either IMHO.
     
  13. JN01

    JN01 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    550
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    When will the Supreme Court announce which cases they will hear for the next session? If they resume business in October, I would think it would be reasonably soon to allow the parties involved time to prepare.
     
  14. Truthseeker

    Truthseeker Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    Virginia
    Let there be no doubt, the California brief was filed with "reasonable regulation", not keep and bear arms in mind. This is a smokescreen.
     
  15. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    We do indeed have a fantastic AG in Michigan. To be honest, I would like to see him run for the big job once Jenny is on the way out.
     
  16. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,705
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    I have personally spoken to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff about his position on gun control. Not only is he very much on our side, he's running for senate.
     
  17. highmountain78

    highmountain78 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Ragnar, consider your self lucky.

    You have a governor and senator to get rid of. We have one senator on the left and another senator recently elected , by the state supreme court, who is on the lunatic far left and we get six years of this clown.
     
  18. RDak

    RDak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    Michigan
    Highmountain: We have two Senators to get rid of (i.e., Levin and Stabenow - both rabidly anti-gun). In fact, Levin ranks right up there with Lautenberg and Feinstein IMHO.

    Our governor has passed every pro-gun bill that came before her and is a supporter of concealed carry. She wasn't always for concealed carry but, when reviewing the stats from other States, she changed her mind and admitted she was "wrong" and "now supports concealed carry".

    She is, by far, the most pro-gun governor we have ever had in Michigan IMHO. And she's a democrat!!?? I know, hard to believe, but it's true. :)

    Ragner: I think Mike Cox has announced he is running for governor IIRC.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  19. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    Sure, go ahead and ignore that over 1.2 million of your fellow citizens voted for that fool. Your state gets what it deserves. There's no way that election should have been remotely close to even provide the courts with an opportunity to give it it Franken.
     
  20. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
  21. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    (Tee hee!)

    On'tda etlay etha atca outa etha agba!

    Woody
     
  22. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    That's the intent.

    I still ask: how can Moonbeam think this will work?

    The case against California's bizarre "list" will stand or fall on its merits and the judges' opinions about the "list" and the case as argued.

    Signing on to incorporation doesn't help California's case. It's not like a judge will sit there and say, "Well, I'd find against California, but man that Jerry Brown sent an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, so I guess I will decide the other way, despite my opinions about the law and the Constitution." That may happen in Congress, but that's not how courts work.

    Agreed. If Moonbeam is that stupid (and he just might be), he might be trying that. But it can't work.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page