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

« Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six | Main | Heller in the press »

Heller update

Posted by David Hardy · 8 February 2008 02:52 PM

Checking out the amicus briefs so far filed... BTW, ScotusBlog must have some software that automatically grabs and uploads an amicus as the Surpeme Court files it, because one of the filers today cc'd me on the upload to the Court, and not two minutes later the file was posted on ScotusBlog!

UPDATE: Here's the Congressional amicus Hat tip to Jack Anderson... oh, and the Vice President signs it as president of the Senate.

Anyway,they're an impressive lot. I was especially struck by the Buckeye Firearms Fdn one and the Pink Pistols one and the Congressional one. NRA has extensive coverage of the issue. Libertarian Party focuses on the Solicitor General's standard of review.

Maj. Generals' one is sponsored by American Shooters and Hunter's Assn, a false flag operation, and suggests that the DC Ban is unconstitutional but other gun laws wouldn't be. Well written, as are the other briefs. There's one by over a hundred women legislators and academics.

And NRA has a list of all the federal legislators who have signed the legislators' brief, not yet online.

Battle stations, latest draft coming back from Joe Olson, I'm outa here!

· Parker v. DC

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Tim | February 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply

Dave, Thank you. This site is a valuable resource.

RKV | February 8, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply

History in the making, Dave. Good luck!

Brian | February 8, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply

Our Democrat Senator in VA signed but not our scumbag RINO Senator. :)

Julie Cochrane | February 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply

David -- Don't know if you remember me from years ago on tpg. James' other half.

My concern, which I hope you can find a way to include in your brief, I don't see mentioned anywhere else.

The USSC has caused at least one huge war, and all manner of strife when it really screwed the pooch. People's normal recourse when they don't like a USSC ruling on the Const. is to persuade a supermajority and pass an amendment. They may not achieve it, but they know they do have a recourse under the law.

Construing the 2nd out of existence does a very dangerous thing. It makes the people they rule against aware that they have NO recourse under the law. Why? Because if the USSC will construe wording that was so plain in its day out of existence, then it doesn't matter how a supermajority words their amendment, the next time a simple majority swings against common people owning and carrying weapons, that amendment will simply be construed out of existence, too.

It's dangerous to take something a whole lot of people feel very passionately about and remove all recourse to legitimate process of law under the system. It means that, when and if they persuade enough people--political winds shift, they will--their only recourse is extra-legal action of a very severe nature.

Not necessarily today, not necessarily tomorrow, not necessarily in the next ten years, but construing an amendment---plainly worded for its time by the people who passed it with a huge supermajority---out of existence by a simple majority will eventually cause a civil war. Bet on it. History shows a lot about human behavior--leave people no recourse under the law, and they abandon the law.

Tomare Utsu Zo | February 9, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply

So, let's put aside that it is very gratifying to have our asses so thoroughly kissed by the Congress. I think this brief is a Trojan Horse.

I see two tracks here. One, they are trying to tie some of their more heinous anti second amendment laws to the idea of protecting rights. And also, they might be trying to offer the court an out by telling them that they are trying to pass laws to fix the problem, so therefore there is no problem to rule on.

Or, at least, that is my fear.

Tom | February 11, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply

I’ve been reading many of these amici and they are quite impressive. I can’t help but wonder how some of the more ideologically left-wing justices will take them.

Have they ever truly considered these ideas and facts before? My sense is that they feel "Guns -- ICKY!" And that's the end of the process.

Will they just ignore the evidence and vote their ideology?

I tend to think that, if they are intellectually honest (and to some degree I think that they are), they won’t be able to not be affected. I suspect that their anti-RKBA opinions are not well-thought through, that they have never really engaged the pro-gun arguments, and that these documents will influence them.

Your thoughts?

Tom | February 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply

I agree with Julie Cochran -- if the USSC can find the right to abortion, contraception, sodomy and Miranda rights in the constitution, but can't figure out what "shall not infringe" means, it will lose all credibility with a large, passionate segment of society.

Nomen Nescio | February 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply

i agree with Tom and Julie --- the political pressure is on for the USSC to find at least some meaning in the 2nd am., and the supremes have traditionally been a pretty politicized body IMHO. finding for the district, now, would rock the boat too much, i think.

it'll be interesting to see how narrowly they decide, though. i don't believe the NFA is at risk, nor even the Hughes amendment --- at least not this time around, probably not any time soon. too much political backwash from overturning either of those.

i'm hoping they'll find for handguns being legal (and i'd be surprised if they didn't), but threading in a difference between that and machineguns would be a tricky exercise for a layman like me. i'd deemphasize the whole militia angle, if it were me, but i'm not on the supreme court!

Leave a comment