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

« Gov Kaine (VA) vetoes two pro gun bills | Main | Sup. Ct. to release audio of Heller arguments on same day »

DC's reply brief in Heller

Posted by David Hardy · 5 March 2008 01:04 PM

It's online at SCOTUSBlog. Reading it now. Interesting that it cites to Larry Tribe's article in yesterday's WSJ. Supremes briefs have to be printed, so this probably "went to bed" last week.

On a quick read:

Terribly weak on "not an individual right." I don't think they answered so much as one point we made in Academics for the Second Amendment's amicus.

A better job, tho, on standard of review.

· Parker v. DC

16 Comments | Leave a comment

Mike M. | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply

Isn't this brief late? I thought yesterday was the drop-dead date.

Mike M. | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply

And FWIW, a quick skim did not indicate anything new, just a repetition of the same old propaganda.

andrew | March 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply

Interesting that Tribe's cite was in there. Apparently, he decided that his political beliefs trump his Constitutional beliefs. If the cite was there, he obviously forked it over to DC well in advance.

Is there anybody with honor left in academia?

Mike M. | March 5, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply

A longer reading (albeit not the fine-tooth legal comb) does not impress. They spend about 2/3rds trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment only refers to the right of states to form militias, the rest arguing that DCs broad gun ban is really Constutitional.

One interesting factor is that the Solicitor-General's brief is almost always lumped in with Heller's briefs in this document.

Sam Draper | March 5, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply

They seem to concede that the militia and the people are indistinguishable.

Jim D. | March 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply

Heavens! Are we suggesting that Larry Tribe conspired with the New York Times and Washington D.C. to influence a Supreme Court decision against individual rights?! Say it ain't so...

So, how exactly was he going to 'help' Heller with the liberal justices? I think his position would have been the same. "Yes, it's an individual right, but you can ban handguns just the same. It's OK. Really. Trust me."

I think Gura et al dodged a clever attempt at an infiltration. Tribe coulda' thrown a monkey wrench in the works big enough to stop the wheels of justice cold. Not to mention the intel leaks prior to filing.

Stay tuned for Tribe's next article: "Why the Vice President is not really a member of the Senate."

Rudy DiGiacinto | March 5, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply

The Reply Brief contains a lie about the history of George Mason, the Virginia Committee of Safety, and the remolding of the militia. On Page 11 of the Reply Brief, they assert that individual arms were not used for insurrection and cite a letter from George Mason to Martin Cockburn which can be seen at http://www.virginia1774.org/GeorgeMasonMartinCockburnAug.html

The Independent Companies (Volunteers) noted in the letter were started by George Mason (George William Fairfax was the County Lieutenant) and were unlawful under Crown Law. The chain of Command went from God to the King to the Royal Governor to the County Lieutenant in Virginia. The Fairfax Independent Company not only was started by Volunteers or individuals with their own weapons, this company forced the tithables of Fairfax County to pay for its upkeep which also took money out of the Crowns coffers. Those members still had to perform their regular militia duties.

Royal Governor Lord Dunmore sought the Arrest of Patrick Henry and his deluded followers who were styling themselves as an independent company in May of 1775 and Lord Dunmore finally demanded that all the Independent Companies be disbanded in June of 1775. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbpe:@field([email protected](rbpe17801700))

George Mason obliged the Governor and turned the Independent Companies into Minute Men under the control of the County Committees and the Committee of Safety.

Federal Farmer | March 5, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply

Remember February only had 29 days, so probably not late filed.

Carl in Chicago | March 6, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply

I still opine that their arguments are predicated falsely...that there is a great deal of evidence to effectively rebut most of their arguments.

But will say that the arguments are communicated more eloquently, and effectively, in this reply brief relative to the merits brief.

I wonder if that is testament to the addition of Dellinger?

Federal Farmer | March 6, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply

There was a noticable increase in quality between their Pet. for Cert. and their Merits as well. Their Pet. for Cert. appeared to have been written by a grade schooler.

Beth | March 6, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply

In the SCT, most briefs aren't printed until the afternoon/day before. Especially in a case like this, they would be working to the wire to get it done, but I think most people in appellate practice would agree that you do not "put to bed" a brief for a case like this until the last minute.

Sam Draper | March 6, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply

Another falsehood in the brief: They say that no state had a constitutional provision protecting the individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and try to explain away Pennsylvania's provision by mentioning the conscience clause. But Vermont's constitution of 1777 also protected the right to arms for self-defense:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Vermont has no conscience clause.

Beth | March 6, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply

Vermont's 1777 document was not a constitution - it was a non-binding declaration (Vermont wasn't a state yet).

Sam Draper | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply

If I understand the history correctly, Vermont declared itself to be an independent Republic in 1777 and ratified that 1777 constitution. Vermont had troops that fought in the revolutionary war, coined its own money, and referred to itself as the State of Vermont. It became a state of the Union in early 1791.

The second amendment was drafted in 1789 and then adopted on December 15, 1791 (when Virginia ratified it).

So at the time that the second amendment was proposed, the only US state that had a specific reference to the use of arms in self-defense in its constitution was Pennsylvania. But Vermont did, and it was a self-described state if not yet part of the union. By the time the second amendment was ratified, Vermont was a state.

In fact, Vermont ratified the 2nd Amendment on November 3, 1791, right before Virginia.

It is not clear from the reply brief which time frame they are talking about. But given that Vermont was one of the states to ratify the second amendment, saying that no state constitution protected the right to arms for use in self-defense seems incorrect.

Beth | March 9, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply

Sam, good question about the time frame. But as I look at it, Vermont *did* have a conscientious objector provision, but not in the same provision as the "defence of themselves and the state" part. Is that how Pennsylvania had it?

Scarrlett | December 19, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply

so I got into a fight and they told me that it was a good thing that I didn't touch the other girl at all because then I could have been fcked in the end, because the state of Vermont doesn't or didn't have a self-defense law....

Leave a comment