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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« This is the Chicago Sun-Times? | Main | West Virginia Senate passes Castle Doctrine »

Articles on Heller and upcoming argument

Posted by David Hardy · 20 February 2008 12:13 PM

Legal Times reports on the question of dividing argument time, which appears to have become rather contentious.

Law.com has a story on the history of the case. Since it's subscription only, I'll post segments in extended remarks below.

Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....

After turmoil in its legal ranks, D.C. prepares to defend its handgun ban at the Supreme Court

By Tony Mauro
Legal Times
February 18, 2008

Walter Dellinger estimates that when his firm, O’Melveny & Myers, briefs and argues a Supreme Court case on a pro bono basis, it usually eats up about $500,000 worth of otherwise billable hours.

But when the District of Columbia called on him in early January to ask him to defend its handgun laws in the Second Amendment case of D.C. v. Heller, Dellinger did not hesitate.

He said yes, even though he now estimates that the cost to his firm in lost fees will be “well over $1 million.” .... What once was a case being handled mostly by in-house counsel in D.C. government suddenly became a project divided between Dellinger’s O’Melveny and two other major law firms, all working pro bono.

On the pro-gun rights side, by contrast, the case is still being controlled by Alan Gura, a dedicated small-firm lawyer practicing in Alexandria, Va. He launched the challenge against D.C.’s gun ordinance on his own six years ago, funded only meagerly by Cato Institute scholar Robert Levy. Gura says he has not been paid for the case since 2003, but he has carried the ball far down the field...

Until last month, Dellinger was not expecting to be quite so busy.

The city already had a top-notch Supreme Court advocate working in the D.C. attorney general’s office: Alan Morrison, former head of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, ... O’Melveny had done some pro bono work for D.C. and its new mayor, Adrian Fenty, in the past, and offered to draft a friend-of-the-court brief in the gun case.

But after unrelated disputes with Fenty counsel Peter Nickles, Morrison’s boss, then-Attorney General Linda Singer, announced her resignation in December. Soon Morrison, viewed as a Singer loyalist, was being shown the door as well. Their last official workday was Jan. 4, the day the city’s merits brief was due at the Court. The sidelined Morrison says city officials are freezing him out of continued involvement in the case. ...

· Parker v. DC

5 Comments | Leave a comment

30yearprof | February 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply

Giving the SG any time at all is unfair. The District is quite capable of representing any governmental interest. If the Supreme Court sets up a 45 minutes for the Petitioner (and its "little friend") vs. 30 minutes for the Respondent oral argument and then decides to support D.C or the S.G., the stink of a "fix is in" will never wash off. And it shouldn't.

Federal Farmer | February 20, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply

Well, I think the longer D.C. talks the more their B.S. will show. They got nothin'!

Mark | February 20, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply

I still do not understand what about the "strict scrutiny" issue has the SG's panties in wad. It is not like this would be the first time federal statutes have been put in jeopardy by the Supreme Court. I thought that was one of the reasons for them being there, to check the other 2 branches in relation the constitution.

And yea, if they give the petitioner and the SG 45 minutes and do not extend the time for the respondent, the fix is in....

jed | February 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply

Dumb non-lawyer question. Isn't the whole amicus curiae process there so that those who want to make an argument can? The SG filed a brief -- but now wants special treatment? So maybe he wants to respond to something in another brief? Certainly he can send a letter to the DC side with his argument, and they can use it or not.

Jim | February 21, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply

Do the justices really care much what is said at oral argument in a case like this one? Do they really not know all the issues? Nothing in any brief I read was new and different, just the same ole same ole. Ginsburg is just going to fall asleep anyhow...

Give them an hour if they want it. That just 30 minutes more fun for Scalia.

Leave a comment