Politics - Heller case

[Ysabel Kid]

From Friday's "Patriot Post"...


AROUND THE NATION: GUN BRIEFS

On 18 March, the justices of the Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case that could decide once and for all whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution supports an individual right to the ownership (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=568) and use of firearms or merely a collective right to militias. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's stance on the issue became murkier when U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals had erred in striking down DC's handgun ban. The Bush administration managed to affirm the individual-right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment while also condemning the previous ruling of the Court of Appeals, since it jeopardizes the government's ability to regulate firearms. In other words, the administration is fine with individual ownership of firearms so long as the federal government can decide which firearms you can own and where you can take them. The solicitor general's brief asks the Supreme Court to return District of Columbia v. Heller to a lower court, where instead of flatly declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, the court should rule that the Second Amendment gives you the rights that the government wants you to have.

On the other hand, The Washington Post reports, "A majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House will file a brief today urging the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment." The brief notes, "This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms." It continues, "The District's prohibitions on mere possession by law-abiding persons of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there are unreasonable."

[FWiedner]

In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the NRA's Heller brief:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf

[Texican]

I've read both the Solicitor Gnl's (representing the Executive branch) brief and that of the Senate.

The Solicitor General's brief is so convoluted as to almost be unreadable. It's argument is predicated on regulations pertaining to voting and one primary falsehood. Regarding the voting law analogy, as best as I can summarize: You have a right to vote but can only exercise it when the government says so. That's how the SG's brief can still expouse an individual right but yet claim to be able to restrict it. The primary falsehood is the SG brief repeatedly makes mention of the 'machine gun ban' to justify a complete ban on handguns in DC. That's patently untrue. Machine guns are taxed differently, that's all. There is no ban on their ownership by individuals. It's a false analogy. Most 2A advocates agree that the SG brief reveals a fear of the NFA regs potentially being invalidated at some point.

By comparison the Senate's brief is a joy to read. Very plain spoken, well documented and rational. VP Dick Cheney signed the Senate brief in apparent opposition to the SG brief.

I would recommend downloading the PDF of the Senate's Amici Curiae so you'll have a list of all the signers from both the Senate and the House. When campaign funds are requested from your representative that signed*, along with the check, send a printout of the name page with their name circled and an "A+, Keep up the good work" next to it. If they didn't sign it, still send the name page and a copy of the check you sent to their opponent (black out the acct #'s) along with a note of "Where's your name?".

[*Sen. John McCain signed it too. You'll have to decide his sincerity on your own.]

Just my two cents.

[1894]

I've sent out five thank you letters to my Reps Some of them even Dems . No big suprise that chuckie and hillary didn't sign on though

[Leverdude]

I'm real glad all those guys signed the Senate brief.
But it makes me wonder why they arent observant enough on their own to notice unconstitutional laws in the City they work in. I guess its just more convenient now.

[Jeeps]

They say they have rock steady beliefs but all you have to do is bring up
something like the 2nd amendment (which is plain in it's wording) and you
could sell tickets to watch them flop like fish in a bucket

Gosh darn sad is all I can say.

[J Miller]

Here's a link to the GOAs Heller Brief: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0802.pdf

Joe

[Leverdude]

In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the NRA's Heller brief:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_amicus_heller.pdf

Thanks Fwied.

[Noah Zark]

IMO, the Supremes need look no further than the First Ten Amendments to the US Constitution -- the answer to the question lies right there:

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

3rd Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." (the singular of "people" being implied in "Owner")

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


In six of the First Ten Amendments, the term "people" appears explicitly. The term "Owner" appears in the 3rd Amendment. The rights of free speech and peaceful assembly are retained by the people, the people are secure from unreasonable search and seizure of property, the people are granted protection against self-incrimination, and the governmental powers not explicitly granted to the the federal and state governments reside in the people. The rights outlined in these amendments have rarely been questioned as to being individual or collective rights; they have long been accepted as individual rights.

So why then, is the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms considered a "collective" right vested in "the Militia," held by some to be a government agency? In fact, the 5th Amendment clearly differentiates between "person(s)" and the "Militia."

The point is, the First Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights, was written largely at the same point in time by the same group of authors after much argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. In the end, it was felt that rights of the people needed to be clearly stated so that no confusion would result from interpreting the Constitution. (little did they know! . . . or maybe some of the founding fathers were indeed prescient?)

The term "people" is used throughout the Bill of Rights, and with most of the First Ten Amendments the rights have been clearly taken to be individual rights. Because the Founding Fathers collectively authored those Amendments, taking them in the context of the day the meaning of the document and the rights confers becomes clear -- each amendment address individual rights, and in many cased explicitly if not implied.

No, I'm not a constitutional law expert or attorney, I don't play one on TV, and it's been quite a while since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

Noah

[Old Ironsights]

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rw-1733.html

[J Miller]

I know they are out there somewhere, but can some one post links to the Sol Gen and the Senates briefs?

Thanks.

Joe

[Old Ironsights]

I know they are out there somewhere, but can some one post links to the Sol Gen and the Senates briefs?

Thanks.

Joe

http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml

[Leverdude]

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewtopic.php?t=3631

Griff put a few links in here Joe. One of them gives all the briefs for both sides.

[J Miller]

Thanks for the links.

Joe