« The quintessence of hypocrisy? | Main
Academics for 2nd Amend. amicus brief online
At ScotusBlog.
Very tired. But will add some commentary.
Argument I is a strong attack on DC's argument over what the 2A was meant to do. I think it pretty well levels that.
Argument VI deals with their dismissal of the PA minority and the NH ratifying proposals. They shrug these off, saying that Madison took the VA language, not the text of those proposals, hence they are irrelevant. BUT we show that there is no evidence that anyone at the time thought that Madison's language was meant to differ with those earlier measures, and much evidence that Americans saw his language as guaranteeing the same rights sought by PA & NH.
At 9 n.7 we hit at DC's claim that, well, maybe the First Senate declined to add into the BoR a statement that States could arm the militia, because it was redundant -- that's what the Second Amendment meant, and they already had written that up. We point out a VA Senator who wrote angrily about losing the vote -- he certainly didn't think the matter had been taken care of!
At 11-12 we point that the Framers HAD the equivalent of unorganized militias, but required them to be armed. They were excused from drill and muster, but not from owning arms.
At 13, we give a judo flip to the argument that the preamble must control the operative clause.
At 16 we point out that the Framers were familiar with *friendly* governments seizing arms when needed in an emergency.
At 20, n. 18, we point out that treating the militia as State controlled is not entirely accurate.
At 22-23, we discuss Federalist No. 26, I think with better analysis than is generally employed. It has to be read carefully.
At 30 we cite an interesting event in the First Congress, which I blogged here long ago.
And some preemptive attacks (remember DC gets to file the last, reply, brief and may try to shift ground)
At 11, n. 9 preempts any try in reply to shift on the theory of purpose.
At 18, n. 14 hits at a theory DC amici cited, in a yet unpublished law rev. article, claiming PA's 1776 guarantee was meant to allow a mandatory militia (PA didn't have one).
At 31 we preempt a move DC might make, arguing that "right of the people" is somehow less individualist than a right of "persons."
Comments
I thank you and your coauthors very, very much for this defense of our liberty.
Posted by: djmoore at February 11, 2008 03:12 PM
May God Bless you, David.
And every one else that helped in this LOoong road.
Are you accepting donations at the address on the brief?
Posted by: SStaggs at February 11, 2008 03:28 PM
Great Job. It appears that from other briefs that came into today and before that these briefs complement each other.
Posted by: Rudy DiGiacinto at February 11, 2008 03:31 PM
Thank you very much for this fight for freedom.
Posted by: Flighterdoc at February 11, 2008 04:03 PM
I read your brief right after I read the brief of the President of the Pennsylvania Senate's history of the right in Pennsylvania and had a big smile that they have records of the private ownership of cannon and being used because the pacifist Quakers nearly doomed Pennsylvania because they controlled the goverment.
Posted by: Rudy DiGiacinto at February 11, 2008 06:12 PM
I presume that you are being paid at least something for the work on this. At least I hope so. I didn't become a lawyer to work for free and you deserve every dime you make, if any, for this.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at February 11, 2008 07:20 PM
Your brief is concise, logical, and focused (unlike some of the others, where it's easy to get lost in the details). Thank you. I feel my donation was well spent.
Posted by: M-K at February 11, 2008 07:22 PM
Read the whole thing. Excellent. I definitely owe you a drink or two at the annual meeting.
Posted by: Sebastian at February 11, 2008 07:46 PM
A2A's brief is first rate.
And in further pro-Heller amicus news:
Thirty-one States.
(see Gura & Possessky's site for link - spam blocker objected to the URL here)
The 31 States support felon-in-possession bans and MG restrictions; they suggest that MGs may not be "Arms" under 2A. But they also say that the worries expressed in the Solicitor General's brief are overblown, and suggest that full-blown bans like D.C.'s should receive strict scrutiny. They say that the D.C. Circuit's judgment should be affirmed in full.
Last lines: "[T]his case is a threshold case: at issue is whether the Second Amendment has any modern meaning whasoever. Remaining faithful to the Constitution, there should be only one answer."
D.C. could only muster five state amici (three of which have no state constitutional right to arms) and Puerto Rico.
Posted by: Mike O'Shea at February 11, 2008 08:09 PM
Also, check out footnote 6 on p.23 of the 31 States' brief -- expressly supporting incorporation of 2A against the States. That's huge.
Posted by: Mike O'Shea at February 11, 2008 08:26 PM
Anyone who suggests MG's are not arms under the 2nd is not our friend. Like it or not folks. It's the man-portable weapon of choice for the Army. That makes it suitable for us "civilians." Same for the military, same for the police, same for the rest of us. Nothing less is good enough.
Posted by: RKV at February 11, 2008 08:53 PM
Excellent work! All the arguments got straight to the point and hit hard. Then kept on coming.
By the way, does on need a PayPal account to donate? Or do they accept straight credit card payments as well?
Posted by: illspirit at February 11, 2008 09:06 PM