« Pro-gun bill signed into law | Main
Amicus briefs in NYSRPA
Links here. A tactical novelty by the other side: having briefs filed which in fact are anti-2A, but labelled a brief "in support of neither party." I can't quite see the point -- posing as neutral to make their message seem less partisan? Trying to disrupt the flow of briefing, and prevent petitioner from having the stage? It gives no time advantage -- briefs in support of neither side must be filed with the petitioner's amicus briefs, perhaps because the Court is aware of such a tactic.
UPDATE: there are about 26 amicus briefs filed, including ones by 118 Congressmen and by 24 states, and by the United States. Four or five (including Brady Campaign and Giffords) are actually anti-2A but filed as briefs supporting neither side.
Wouldn't things have been so much simpler and better if the supreme court under Marshall in 1833 had properly adjudicated Barron. The supremacy clause bound the states to the amendments. No need to pontificate and make up things. The 2nd states exactly what it means and applies to both the feds and the states. NO INFRINGEMENT on the right to keep and bear arms. That does not preclude punishments for illegal acts with those arms but leaves no place for restrictions of any kind prior to an act that violates valid (constitutional) law.