Historians' brief for DC

Saul Cornell? This oughta be good.

I'm no historian, but after glancing through the brief, I don't buy it.

Their argument is essentially (if I'm reading it correctly) that the Framers did not intend the 2nd Amendment to guarantee an individual right to possession of arms. Rather, their argument puts the Amendment into the context of debates over who gets to control the militia: the federal government or the states.

If that's the case, I fail to see why the Framers would write that the right belongs to the people rather than the states. If the Amendment was really about control over the militia, there would be no need to mention the "right of the people" at all. Instead, there should be more explicit language about the powers reserved to the states.

Regardless, it's a bland and boring brief; it makes many references to various historic documents and events but it's not very persuasive. I've found that the best briefs set forth important policy concerns in addition to citation of precedent. They never really get into exactly why the Court should hold for D.C.

color me not impressed. This brief is nothing more than another cornell type attempt to say that individuals may have a right to arms, but the 2nd primarily concerns that 'militia' or national guard.

What, Michael A Bellesiles did not sign?

Ah, the usual suspects.... It's delicious irony that it's signed by the aptly named Professor Bogus. Let the games begin, eh? I'm greatly looking forward to reading ALL of the other amici. History in the making, this is sure going to be interesting. FYI, The AJC has filed their's, here's their press release.

January 11, 2008 – New York – The American Jewish Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today, asserting that the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws do not offend the Constitution. The case, D.C. v. Heller, will be the first gun control case before the Supreme Court in sixty eight years.

“Gun control laws safeguard liberty, rather then restrict it,” said AJC General Counsel Jeffrey Sinensky. “Democracy can only flourish when the government is permitted to protect its citizens from harm.”

The amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess firearms for personal use, but rather “was designed to enhance state and local authority to protect life and liberty through the maintenance of militias composed of the local populace.”

AJC filed the brief with a coalition that includes the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

AJC has a long history of supporting gun control laws, including the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989, and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993.

American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

It is hard to believe that the effort for Jewish sucide is still alive and well. I would think that WWII and the history of Israel would have taught all Jews that only THEY can protect themselves. How is it possible for these Jews to be that dumb.

How can they not know what "Never Again" means!!

By the way, y'all should help out with the brief that David and Co. are preparing by contributing to their group.

http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/

Pass it along to your friends and get them to kick in a few bucks too. What is the 2A worth to you? If there was ever a time to put you money where your mouth is, that time is now!! Do it.

I skimmed the first part of it. I'll give it this: It's more coherent and easier to read than the DC brief.

After about the third time that I summarized a section as "interesting, but irrelevant" or "impossible for anyone to know the truth of what they are asserting" I quit reading.

It does not matter what England did. It does not matter what an earlier draft of the BOR said. We changed those things precisely because we disagreed with them.

i hope the AJC's amicus brief is better argued than their press release, because it is pitifully easy for even me to dismantle.

it's making the hidden assumption that government can only protect us if gun control laws can be passed. with any knowledge of the case itself at all, the AJC seems to be arguing that government can't protect us unless guns can be outright banned.

let's not get into whether organized militias do better or worse at protecting our liberty than individual armed citizens do, or what a militia may do to an unpopular, disarmed minority... although the AJC really should have thought of that.

"AJC has a long history of supporting gun control laws, including the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989, and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993."

Does anyone here know what the Judenrat was? These people would have served it at the expense of the lives of 13 million people.

I assume they think the Nazis should get another chance to be more effective. Moral and intellectual failures seem to be their most distinguishing characteristic.

The flood of amici has begun. 9 have been posted so far.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html#district

Alan Gura has updated their site;

http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

with a good number of other amici for the petitioneers. Respondent's amici briefs are due February 4