Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Armed pizza deliverymen | Main | Online poll on allowing guns in Nat'l Parks »

Light blogging for a time

Posted by David Hardy · 10 January 2008 05:58 PM

Been working on an amicus in Parker/Heller. As in 10-12 hour workdays.

Interesting event today. A small group of historians filed an amicus in support of DC.

And went 552 words over the word limit. So they have to resubmit tommorrow, the deadline. Since S. Ct. briefs have to be printed, I assume they were calling the printer today to see if they could bang out another set and have it to the Court by tommorrow.

UPDATE: the historians are Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell, David Konig, Wm Novak, Lois Schwoerer, Fred Anderson, Carol Berkin, Paul Finkelman, Don Higginbotham, Stanley Katz, Pauline Maier, Peter Onuf, Robert Shalhope, John Shy, and Alan Taylor.

17 Comments | Leave a comment

Greg Lyons | January 10, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply

Who are they?

Fiftycal | January 10, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply

Thanks SO MUCH for your time in the Heller case. I believe this will be the most important decision by the Supreme Court in 100+ years.

straightarrow | January 10, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply

If they filed on the side of DC, they can't be very good historians. Perhaps they are revisionist historians?

Sebastian | January 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply

What surprises me is that the Supreme Court paid someone to read through the brief, counting up all the words. Maybe they scan it into electronic format?

anon | January 10, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply

"A small group of historians filed an amicus in support of DC."

Shouldn't that read: 'A small group of historians shot their credibility all to hell'?

Gregg | January 10, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply

Where can I find the names of these alleged historians?

KBCraig | January 11, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply

Was this "group of 'historians'" affiliated with Michael Bellesiles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bellesiles

Starter | January 11, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply

What does it mean that the briefs have to be "printed"? I assume it's more than just a ban on handwritten submissions. Is it a certain quality level of the output or does it mean they have to be bound or what? Could an at home print job be slipped through if it looked right? I'm sure the output of a good laser printer would be equal in quality to anything a professional printer would produce. I did a quick Google of this but only found out the shocking fact that a minimum of 40 copies must be submitted.

Jim W | January 11, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply

They have a lot of clerks.

Starter | January 11, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply

Well to answer my own questions: According to rule 33.1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/33.html It appears that typewriters are out but laser printers will do. And briefs must be bound, preferably with a saddle stitch or perfect binding. According to Wikipedia, a saddle stitch is staples through the centers of folded pages like most American comic books, and a perfect binding is like National Geographic. It looks like you could do it if you were a real do-it-yourselfer, though of course it would probably be more practical to have it done.

Chris | January 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply

Did you get a copy of their 522 word brief? If so, can you post it?

Jim | January 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply

A group of historians filing for DC could be a real problem. If the Court is inclined to find for DC then this could give them the cover to do it. Someone is going to have to pick their brief apart.

Alan A. | January 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply

The fact that these are historians worries me since the crux of the arguments for the gun ban are historical interpretations of the 2A. What are they possibly saying in support of the gun ban?

Alan A. | January 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply

Sorry, previous post should read "since the crux of the arguments AGAINST the gun ban..."

RKV | January 11, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply

"A group of historians filing for DC could be a real problem. If the Court is inclined to find for DC then this could give them the cover to do it. Someone is going to have to pick their brief apart."

Already in work. Send them some $$.

http://academicssecondamendment.blogspot.com/

30yearprof | January 11, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply

Jack Rakove and Robert Shalhope are going to have some of their own earlier words to eat.

Bill | January 11, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply

Well, if Saul Cornell is on the list you can be sure that modern revisionism is flying high.

It will be interesting just how far they twist reality to get to their desired result.

Leave a comment