« More amicus briefs | Main | Bloggers take on Brady Campaign brief »
An almost full roster of amici
Right here. Thirty so far.
I was especially happy to see the Brief of Constitutional Law Professors. Among those signing on are Michael Kent Curtis, who essentially rescued the privileges or immunities clause during the 1980s. And the Calguns Foundation, taking on Charles Fairman and Raoul Berger, the reasons why Curtis had to perform the rescue.
Comments
Astounding. Thirty in support, two more not [yet] posted, and two in support of neither party.
I had anticipated Brady's brief to center on the "guns as social cost" argument, and perhaps expounding on their favorite "presumptively lawful" paragraph from Heller. Yet they argue against strict scrutiny. Perhaps they think or know that a narrow "guns are bad" argument will not carry the day? They DO argue that the RKBA is "unique" among our other, less "toothy" rights.
So they are arguing for a "Reasonableness" test when it comes to infringing the RKBA. Is this any different than Rational Review that has already been foreclosed by Heller?
Posted by: Carl from Chicago at November 24, 2009 07:24 AM
The Brady brief reads as if they have already abandoned the struggle against incorporation, and are merely trying to limit damage by pushing for a deferential standard, rather than a strict standard.
Posted by: Jeff at November 24, 2009 08:38 AM
What are the heroes at the Department of Justice going to do? Are they going to file in support of Chicago?
Posted by: SGD at November 24, 2009 09:13 AM
Question: Does the SCOTUS do any fact checking on the briefs submitted? I looked at the Brady Amicus and saw that they referenced several highly slanted and flawed studies regarding gun violence. Do they get away with this without their facts being challenged? What happens if they are caught doing something like referencing the Bassallis (sp?) study that was shown to be a complete fraud?
Posted by: Alan A. at November 24, 2009 01:59 PM
What are the heroes at the Department of Justice going to do? Are they going to file in support of Chicago?
Posted by: SGD at November 24, 2009 09:13 AM
Good question. I had suspected they'd file on behalf of neither party, but if they had, we'd have seen their brief by now.
Perhaps Holder will reverse the Justice Department's opinion (put out by Ashcroft), and formulate a new official stance on the grounds that the 2A does not protect any individual right! ;-) Kind of like the ACLU did ... "yes, we are aware of Heller, but the court was simply wrong. So it's business as usual, for us."
Posted by: Carl from Chicago at November 24, 2009 02:26 PM
WOW, thanks for all the hard work ...
Posted by: bill-tb at November 24, 2009 05:59 PM
Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation. Only one year old and already making quite an impact!
Posted by: jdberger at November 30, 2009 11:46 AM