Are the briefs for King et al. available?

If not, does anyone know when they are due?

Actually, I should have King's/Alameda County's reply brief later this evening. I'll post it as soon as it is converted.

-Gene

"It is unfathomable that the states are constitutionally limited in their
regulation of medical decisions or intimate relations, because these matters touch
upon personal autonomy, but are unrestrained in their ability to trample upon the
enumerated right to arms designed to enable self-preservation."



"Appellees err, profoundly, in suggesting that the Lockean bargain of
living under a government includes the assignment of all individual self-defense
rights to the discretion of the authorities. A bargain of this nature would recall not
so much Locke, but Orwell – and it is rejected by the fabric of our legal system."



from the SAF Amicus.


Damn, Alan, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel, OK?

RKV:

I too am struck by Gura's straightforward style. His brief is powerful, concise, and well-written. This struck me too while read the various briefs by him in Heller, and also the brief filed in the Illinois district court regarding McDonald v. Chicago.

Clearly, he's quickly and forcefully risen to become a prominent litigator in second amendment cases, and I suspect his career is laid out for him. We are glad to have him on board.

Carl, I too am glad Gura is on OUR side. His opposite numbers in the Chicago case have got to be worried.

As I envision where our litigation needs to go I picture a table with four legs - in that we have four pillars to build to restore the 2nd Amendment to it's rightful place in constitutional law.



1) Individual right - check, see Heller.

2) Incorporation vis a vis the states - victories in McDonald and or Nordyke (BOTH!) will do fine thank you.

3) Strict scrutiny - see also McDonald, Nordyke less so, but don't let's forget what effects Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia or Murdock vs. Pennsylvania would have on such a holding.

4) Militia purpose - this is a bit hazy in terms of current litigation, but what I mean is answering the question proposed in Miller (and I am well aware of the perils of interpreting this particular decision) namely, that the arms protected have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." See also Adams v. Williams where it was held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."



This foundation supports a robust 2nd Amendment, which limits the powers of the federal AND state governments to infringe on the same, yielding a citizen (as opposed to government based) militia, armed with current technology weapons suitable to carry out the Article 1 Section 8 defined missions of the militia.

That, in my opinion is the end state we are working toward. Shall issue concealed carry is ancillary outcome, but not vital to the goal - a functional unorganized militia as envisioned by the founders as a check to government power and is by definition "necessary to the free state."

It goes without saying, that large fraction of existing state and federal gun enactments (I do not give them the benefit of naming them laws, as they are facially unconstitutional) would be stricken down.