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

« US v. Miller (1939) | Main | Cory Maye gets a new trial! »

NRA's Chicago brief

Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2009 08:22 AM

Pdf is here. Between this and Petitioner's brief, I think the ground is covered very well. Petitioner emphasizes incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause (which makes far more sense) and NRA emphasizes incorporation under the due process clause (which is simpler to do).

NRA files, not as an amicus, but as respondent in support of petitioner. In case you wonder what that is -- NRA also filed an appeal (a petition for cert.), but the Supreme Court took the SAF case and not the NRA one, which remains pending. The Clerk ruled that NRA, being a party to the other appeal, was entitled to file as if it were a party (meaning a longer brief, but deadline yesterday). It'd obviously be in support of the Petitioner. But custom is that anyone not a petitioner and not an amicus is a respondent. So they wound up as Respondent in Support of Petitioner).

· Chicago gun case

6 Comments | Leave a comment

SGD | November 17, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply

Excellent brief. It gives the justices three ways to rule in our favor.

matt d | November 17, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply

I thought it was a lot better than the Gura brief, which was just ok. NRA had a lot more and clearer examples of original intent.

RKV | November 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply

Gura gets to the heart of the matter, even though some on the court don't want to hear it - Slaughterhouse WAS wrongly decided. All it's projeny are tainted. Some wanted to restore the condition of servitude to newly freed blacks, and got a complicit court to help them out by gutting the 14th. Time (way past, in fact) to correct that.

Flighterdoc | November 17, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply

IANAL, but I thought Gura's brief was much more logically structured and clear.

W. W Woodward | November 18, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply

It is beyond my limited comprehension why incorporation is necessary. The wording of the 14th Amendment and the debates surrounding its ratification are very clear as to why it was ratified to begin with. However, if incorporation is really absolutely necessary, I would much rather see the SCOTUS incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the privileges ad immunities (read citizens' rights) clause than under the due process clause.

In my forty plus years in the criminal justice system I have seen far too many rights infringed and injustices perpetrated upon citizens by government in the name of due process.

W. W Woodward | November 19, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply

Here is the Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in support of the petitioners

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuRutherfordInst.pdf

and the Paragon Foundation’s amicus brief in support of the petitioners

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuParagonFound.pdf

Leave a comment