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

« More amicus briefs | Main | Bloggers take on Brady Campaign brief »

An almost full roster of amici

Posted by David Hardy · 24 November 2009 06:50 AM

Right here. Thirty so far.

I was especially happy to see the Brief of Constitutional Law Professors. Among those signing on are Michael Kent Curtis, who essentially rescued the privileges or immunities clause during the 1980s. And the Calguns Foundation, taking on Charles Fairman and Raoul Berger, the reasons why Curtis had to perform the rescue.

· Chicago gun case

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Carl from Chicago | November 24, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply

Astounding. Thirty in support, two more not [yet] posted, and two in support of neither party.

I had anticipated Brady's brief to center on the "guns as social cost" argument, and perhaps expounding on their favorite "presumptively lawful" paragraph from Heller. Yet they argue against strict scrutiny. Perhaps they think or know that a narrow "guns are bad" argument will not carry the day? They DO argue that the RKBA is "unique" among our other, less "toothy" rights.

So they are arguing for a "Reasonableness" test when it comes to infringing the RKBA. Is this any different than Rational Review that has already been foreclosed by Heller?

Jeff | November 24, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply

The Brady brief reads as if they have already abandoned the struggle against incorporation, and are merely trying to limit damage by pushing for a deferential standard, rather than a strict standard.

SGD | November 24, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply

What are the heroes at the Department of Justice going to do? Are they going to file in support of Chicago?

Alan A. | November 24, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply

Question: Does the SCOTUS do any fact checking on the briefs submitted? I looked at the Brady Amicus and saw that they referenced several highly slanted and flawed studies regarding gun violence. Do they get away with this without their facts being challenged? What happens if they are caught doing something like referencing the Bassallis (sp?) study that was shown to be a complete fraud?

Carl from Chicago | November 24, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply

What are the heroes at the Department of Justice going to do? Are they going to file in support of Chicago?
Posted by: SGD at November 24, 2009 09:13 AM

Good question. I had suspected they'd file on behalf of neither party, but if they had, we'd have seen their brief by now.

Perhaps Holder will reverse the Justice Department's opinion (put out by Ashcroft), and formulate a new official stance on the grounds that the 2A does not protect any individual right! ;-) Kind of like the ACLU did ... "yes, we are aware of Heller, but the court was simply wrong. So it's business as usual, for us."

bill-tb | November 24, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply

WOW, thanks for all the hard work ...

jdberger | November 30, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply

Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation. Only one year old and already making quite an impact!

Leave a comment