TexasCHLforum.com

DC has filed their brief about 24 hours after firing the person who wrote it. Here it is!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... heller.pdf

As expected...the 2A only applies to organized militias...

Here is an interesting paragraph where they cite a couple shooting books -

"Although there are competing views today, just as in 1976, the Council acted based on plainly reasonable grounds. It adopted a focused statute that continues to allow private home possession of shotguns and rifles, which some gun rights’ proponents contend are actually the weapons of choice for home defense. Dave Spaulding, Shotguns for Home Defense: Here’s How to Choose and Use the Most Effective Tool for Stopping an Attack, Guns & Ammo, Sept. 2006, at 42; Clint Smith, Home Defense, Guns Mag., July 2005, at 50 (preferring rifles). The Second Amendment inquiry requires no more."

Kalrog wrote:DC has filed their brief about 24 hours after firing the person who wrote it. Here it is!

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... heller.pdf

Wow, 79 pages of hooie. I read a few paragraphs and couldn't take the stupidity any longer. I'll have to get psyched up to read the whole thing.

gmckinl wrote:Wow, 79 pages of hooie. I read a few paragraphs and couldn't take the stupidity any longer. I'll have to get psyched up to read the whole thing.

You don't have to read the whole thing... there are lots of citation pages and other filler material. But there were 50 good pages to read (granted I skimmed some of it).

I have read the entire brief twice. Believe me it was a chore both times. It is interesting that DC has cited so many references to the military term of "bear arms" I decided to go to the National Archives website to see how our government would characterize the bill of rights. This is a direct quote from the site.


" During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. "

I doubt that the justices would do something so simple as to go to the National Archives and read this interpretation.

Here's some thoughts from someone who did read the whole thing:

http://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.co ... -make.html

It's a lengthy post. Go check it out.

elb

p.s. Should have included the title of the post: "How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Make a Circular Argument? In Heller, a Lot!"

elb

Kalrog wrote:(granted I skimmed some of it).

ELB wrote:Here's some thoughts from someone who did read the whole thing:

http://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.co ... -make.html

It's a lengthy post. Go check it out.

elb

p.s. Should have included the title of the post: "How Many Lawyers Does It Take to Make a Circular Argument? In Heller, a Lot!"

elb

That is some great stuff!!!

Thats a good basis for a lawyer joke too...Charles will like this one!!!

Well, after going through that I want to go out for some fresh air. Watch the sunrise, (reminiscent of the movie Red Dawn). Then pack off to the range.

It really bothers me that Americans can misconstrue our rights like that.

lrb111 wrote:Well, after going through that I want to go out for some fresh air. Watch the sunrise, (reminiscent of the movie Red Dawn). Then pack off to the range.

It really bothers me that Americans can misconstrue our rights like that.

I summise you will be coming back with a calm demeanor and good groupings??? It always calms me down a bit...

I just got back from NRA committee meetings and a Board meeting and I'm dead tired! I'm on the Legal Affairs Committee and the Legislative Policy Committee and NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund Board of Trustees (among other committees). Both of those committees were briefed in detail on the Heller case and the NRA CRDF is involved. I'm going to post a very general report on this weeks activities, including the Heller case, a little later tonight. Let me say up front that this is a public forum and I'm sure we have anti-gunners reading it, so I cannot go into detail that could be harmful to the cause. Rest assured, a huge, well-coordinated, very talented effort is going into responding to D.C.'s brief.

The D.C. brief is well written and if someone didn't know the truth about the legislative and case law history, they could well be convinced. However, it is full of holes and inaccuracies that will be easy so address.

Chas.

You know Charles...I can't say anything more than that you are a gem to the cause...Priceless...

I think all you need to say is that its going to go fine for our side of the issue, and that I would accept that without any additional explanation...

I wouldn't want you to explain something that may give the opposition something to use against our efforts and what we support...Like you say...

A suggestion...

That TSRA convention coming up late next month...I think it would be great to have a room setup where we can come in and get up to speed on the case, and discuss it from there...I figure by that time a lot of the briefs and debate will be well on its way in the Supreme Court at that time...

I just don't want to give the other side ANY breaks at all...

But that's just me...

lrb111 wrote:Well, after going through that I want to go out for some fresh air. Watch the sunrise, (reminiscent of the movie Red Dawn). Then pack off to the range.

It really bothers me that Americans can misconstrue our rights like that.

The people who wrote the brief aren't misconstruing anything.

They know full well that the 2A affirms an individual RKBA.

It's just that they are lawyers, and they were given a job to do - to write the best brief that they could. A lawyer, a good one anyway, is supposed to be able to argue either side of any case. Now it sure helps if the side you're arguing happens to be supported by things like "the law" and/or "the facts". But even if it's not, you still do the best you can.

I couldn't force myself to plow through the whole brief - not yet anyway. But from what I have read so far, it is incredibly lame. I think even the Breyers and Souters of the world will find little in it they can agree with (though that will not stop them from voting their preconceived notions anyway).

I for one feel heartened by the fact that such a lame effort represents the best argument that they could make.

I am a little confused on the timelines and what is expected from whom. I don't even know what purpose of these briefs are.
The DC lawyers put this brief ( more like a book) it had a due date of friday I believe. Our side is now to respond instead of submiting one at the same time?
Now our side is to respond to this. As I understand it Gura is heading up this case along with Neily and Levy. Is the NRA Brief written in Co-operation with the Gura team or independantly? Are there 2 briefs due soon (Gura's and NRA's) and when are they due? I'm really confused at the relationship of The Parker team and the NRA. Is The NRA working with Parker, (everything I read from Parker insist this is not an NRA case) or is it an independent input from the NRA? Apparently the NRA is putting a lot of work into the case, but I don't understand what the relationship is in this.

The NRA is not directly involved in this case - there is nothing due from them at all. What quite often happens though is that people who support one side or the other will submit "supporting" briefs for their side in addition to what the lawyers for the case submit. And they might even offer pro-bono assistance (all of the outside firms for DC are doing that in this case according to what I have read) on the lawyer's brief.

This is Heller (Gura) and DC case. NOT an NRA case. But Charles can attest that the NRA is helping.