DC v. Heller: US Government files Amicus for the prosecution

[Clinotus]

I'm sure a few of you have seen this floating around but the U.S. Government care of the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General have filed an Amicus Brief in favor for the prosecution:

Link to the first article. (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/01/government_file_1.php)

Direct link to the PDF of the brief. (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf)




The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns. However, the text and history of the Second Amendment point to a more flexible standard of review."


But wait it gets better:

Additional Amicus Briefs Filed in support:

American Academy of Pediatrics (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_childrens_groups.pdf)
American Bar Association (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_aba.pdf)
American Public Health Association, et al. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_public_health_groups.pdf)
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_brady_center.pdf)
City of Chicago (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_chicago.pdf)
Coalition of civil rights groups (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_coalition.pdf)
D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, et al. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_dcappleseed.pdf)
District Attorneys (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_district_attorneys.pdf)
Former Department of Justice Officials (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_former_doj_officials.pdf)
Historians (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf)
Major U.S. cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_cities.pdf)
Members of Congress (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_members_of_congress.pdf)
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_naacp_ldf.pdf)
National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_domestic_violence_groups.pdf)
New York and other states (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_states.pdf)
Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_law_professors.pdf)
Professors of criminal justice (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_criminologists.pdf)
Professors of linguistics (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists.pdf)
Violence Policy Center and various police chiefs (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_vpc.pdf)

Source for links (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/)

The NY/MA/Council of Mayors is doozie:



I. The Second Amendment Does Not Apply to State Laws.
II. The States Have Established Workable Rules to Protect an Individual Right to Bear Arms.

[Clinotus]

A Certiorari was filed today....on behalf!



Washington, D.C.—Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C. bans the possession of handguns outright, and further forbids rifles and shotguns from ever being operable in private homes for use in self-defense. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is named for Dick Anthony Heller, a private security guard who carries a gun at work, but cannot keep one at home to defend himself and his wife. “I’m fighting for the constitutional right of law-abiding individuals who live in dangerous communities to have a firearm to protect themselves and their families from rampant violent crime,” said Heller.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared D.C.’s gun prohibition laws to be unconstitutional. The city, with encouragement from the attorneys challenging the gun ban, asked the Supreme Court to review that decision. The Court agreed in November and set oral argument for 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 18. A final decision is expected by June 30, 2008.

This historic brief marks the first-ever substantive merits argument filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Second Amendment rights. In the only previous Supreme Court case addressing the Second Amendment, United States v. Miller (1939), the individuals claiming their rights were not represented by counsel and entered no appearance before the Court. This time, Second Amendment rights are being vigorously defended.

“The Second Amendment secures for Americans an individual right to defend themselves and their loved ones, at home, with ordinary firearms,” declared lead counsel Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C., who will argue the case before the Supreme Court. “The evidence of this simple truth is overwhelming, whether one looks at the Second Amendment’s text, structure, or history. When a fundamental right is at stake, the Supreme Court should rigorously scrutinize government regulations. And when a city tries to completely ban the exercise of a fundamental right, as Washington, D.C. has, the courts must step in and declare the law unconstitutional. If the D.C. ban is upheld, then every gun law, no matter how invasive, will be rubber-stamped by the courts and the Second Amendment will mean nothing,” added Gura.

“Residents of Washington, D.C. are not second-class citizens,” explained Clark Neily, co-counsel to the respondent and a Washington, D.C.-area public interest lawyer who specializes in constitutional litigation. “They enjoy the same right to defend themselves with ordinary firearms of their choice – including handguns – as the citizens of any other state, none of which bans handguns or functional long guns the way Washington, D.C. does.”

Robert Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and also co-counsel to the respondent, stated, “The right to protect oneself in one’s home is among the most fundamental of all rights. The Second Amendment unambiguously states the ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ It is time for the Supreme Court to recognize what the vast majority of Americans already recognize - namely, that the Constitution protects their right to keep commonly used firearms in their homes for lawful purposes.”

*source for text of article (http://dcguncase.com/blog/)


PDF Download of the brief. (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-0290bs.pdf)

[Clinotus]

More on behalf of the respondent:

American Legislative Exchange Council (”http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_ale.pdf”)

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_aaps.pdf)
Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf)
Criminologists (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_criminologists.pdf)
Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_disabled_vets.pdf)
Foundation for Free Expression (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_fffe.pdf)
GeorgiaCarry.org (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_gc.pdf)
National Rifle Association (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_nra.pdf)
Rutherford Institute (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_rutherford.pdf)

[Clinotus]

:neo-whoa:

Another brief has been filed in favor of the respondent, this time by 55 members of the United States Senate, The *PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, and 250 members of the United States House of Representatives.

*Meaning 250 Members of the House and the Vice President are favoring the removal of the ban or rather its unconstitutionality.

Link to PDF of the Brief (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf)

Go Cheney!

[Fang]

Score! The congressional numbers are impressive, given what's supposed to be a Democrat majority.

[Clinotus]

Score! The congressional numbers are impressive, given what's supposed to be a Democrat majority.

Indeed, whats even more suprprising it that you have a few representatives from states that you would not expect to see such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California.

All briefs are due tomorrow February 11, 2008.

[Clinotus]

More in favor of the respondent.



Cato Institute, Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacCatoInstituteandHistoryProfessorJoyceLeeMal colm.pdf)
Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacSecondAmendmentFoundation.pdf)
Pink Pistols, Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacPinkPistols.pdf)
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsHellerFarerFersko.pdf)
Women State Legislators, Academics (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacwomenstatelegislatorsandacademics.pdf)
Congress of Racial Equality”] Congress of Racial Equality (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07290bsacCongressofRacialEquality.pdf)
Alaska Outdoor Council, et al. (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacAlaskaOutdoorCouncil.pdf)
Libertarian National Committee (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacLibertarianNationalCommittee.pdf)
Paragon Foundation (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacTheParagonFoundationInc.pdf)
Grass Roots of South Carolina (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacGrassRootsofSouthCarolinaInc.pdf)
Suzanna Hupp, Liberty Legal Institute (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/LLIBrief.pdf)
Virginia 1774 (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacvirginia1774.0rg.pdf)
Military Officers, American Hunters and Shooters Association (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacAltenburgetal.pdf)

[Clinotus]

As posted in the editoral section of the Washington Times:


Second Amendment an individual right

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.

[Clinotus]

3/18/08 - Opening arguments.