TexasCHLforum.com

The ABA tries desperately to make the stare decisis argument in its brief.

They don't even attempt to address Original Intent or Original Understanding.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... nbrief.pdf

When you boil it down, what they are saying is that:

1) One of their major activities is to advise state and local governments with regard to the shape of proposed legislation.

2) They have been doing this for many years.

3) And for all that time, they have been telling these governments that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee an individual RKBA. They did this based on their interpretation of the Miller decision and a few other lower court cases.

4) In view of the above, if the SCOTUS now ruled clearly that the 2nd Amendment did guarantee an individual right, it would put the whole legal structure of gun control law throughout the 50 states at risk of being struck down.

5) And finally, even if the 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual RKBA, The Court shouldn't rule that way (and thus set new precedent) because it should only do that when "special circumstances" are present (which they claim are not present in this case).

It makes one wonder, "Who appointed them to hand out all this legal advise to state and local governments?" And why should their opinions take precedence over that of our official and constitution-based judicial institutions (i.e. the courts)? And finally, who gets to decide what "special circumstances" are? Were there special circumstances in Brown v Board of Ed.? How about Roe v Wade, which certainly overturned many years of legal precedent, or Miranda?

It sounds to me that by the ABA's reasoning, "special circumstances" exist only when they want long-standing precedent to be overturned.

And even worse, they misread existing SCOTUS precedents when it suits them. So even their lame stare decisis argument is not valid.

We're gonna win this one, guys.

Among the ABA’s goals are to “increase public understanding of and respect for the law, the legal process, and the role of the legal profession� and “advance the rule of law in the world.�

So they want to support poor law while ignoring the law of the land? How does this foster respect or increase understanding?

The ABA has served as a resource in ensuring that the public respects judicial decisions and recognizes the importance of adherence to established constitutional principles in our governmental system of checks and balances.

While themselves ignoring the contitutional priniples of our Bill of Rights.

For more than forty years, the ABA has predicated its educational and advisory efforts regarding gun control on the
constitutional principle articulated in this Court’s opinions: that the Second Amendment ties the right to bear arms to maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

And they are afraid to admit they were wrong all this time?

and back to the beginning:

2 Neither this brief nor the decision to file it should be interpreted to reflect the views of any member of the judiciary
associated with the American Bar Association. No inference should be drawn that any member of the Judicial Division
Council has participated in the adoption or endorsement of the positions of this brief. This brief was not circulated to any
member of the Judicial Division Council prior to filing.

So who in the ABA is responsible for filing this brief? The rest of the membership, or do they, like the AARP, have some sort of ruling council that decides how to represent the membership without regard for how the membership feels.

I think these people are the culprits.

WILLIAM H. NEUKOM,
Counsel of Record
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 988-5000

OF COUNSEL:
ROBERT N. WEINER
JOHN A. FREEDMAN
CHRISTOPHER S. RHEE
MURAD HUSSAIN
JENNIFER NEWBERGER
EMILIA P. PETERSEN

I notice they included their phone number. Maybe I'll give them a call Monday and let them know how lame I think their brief is.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The ABA tries desperately to make the stare decisis argument in its brief.

Nice summary. And if I may summarize your summary: "We make a lot of money advising our clients on gun laws. Please don't take away our gravy train."

(Yeah, I know, it's only a minor part of the revenue stream. But still... )

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I think these people are the culprits.

WILLIAM H. NEUKOM,
Counsel of Record
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610

Probably in the same building as Obama's law office. same plan, take em all /sarc

I despise the ABA! I quit about 15 years ago, as did about 30,000 members that year. I quite because the Association was taking positions on political issues that had nothing to do with the provision of quality legal services to our clients. It didn't further the organizations goals, only the goals of a handful of men and women "at the top."

I used to get calls from the ABA once or twice a year asking me to rejoin. They never liked by response.

Chas.

I joined as a new lawyer. Once I read the magazines, I did not renew. Wow, they don't stand for the vast majority of lawyers that I know. They seem to focus on the coasts and their view of law.

Nazrat wrote:They seem to focus on the coasts and their view of law.

That's a great description!

Chas.

Chas,

What do you, as an attorney, think of the "arguments" they presented in their brief?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Chas,

What do you, as an attorney, think of the "arguments" they presented in their brief?

I've been too busy to read it. I'll try to read it later this weekend.

Chas.