Heller arguments filed
Reader Jesse emails this post:
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.
Here’s the arguments.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Just looked it over. Nothing new, but a solid summation of the arguments and the supporting information that our side has known for years.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
The Petitioners (Washington DC local government) just got their faces slapper, hard. Nothing like citing chapter and verse which demonstrate omissions of relevant citations, lack of legal logic, complete untruthfulness regarding cases cited and inconsistency with 200+ years of precedent.
Unless the liberals on the Supreme Court want to have most of their individual liberty jurisprudence thrown into confusion by ruling on the 2nd Amendment very differently than they have ruled on the 1st and 4th, the Heller case will be a big win for gun rights.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I hope so. I want DC crushed.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
EXCELLENT BRIEF! It torches all most all of the DC strawmen. Can’t wait for the oral arguments.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
What does page 60’s argument dealing with the Miller case, and let me quote the footnotes
The lineal descendants of personal arms of the type in predictable civilian usage are thus protected, but modern weapons of the type that serve no ordinary civilian function are not.
Or page 61
spell out for the future if they accept these arguments? Would that mean single shot anythings are OK, and if we were ever to be forced into action that would have to be enough to go up against machine gun wielding invaders? Are the police not civilians? They possess and use machine guns, as do private contractors such as blackwater. Whatever happened to equal protection?
On page 67 they say that the issue is not machine guns, however, a ban on NEW machine guns (since 86) does limit the number that can be in civilian hands. Perhaps there would be hope for it?
Page 68
Uh…coulda done without that.
Arguing that background checks (as well as registration when the 4473s go off to the BATFE as they continue their jihad against “willful” paperwork violations) and mental health screenings will pass strict scrutiny…that’s a privilege, not a right. You don’t HAVE to prove yourself to exercise a right. Throwing in the “drug use” something the government has no constitutional authority to do anything with short of some unknown amendment, why?
incorporation is not before the court. I just don’t get all this incorporation garbage. WHY wouldn’t an amendment that was ratified by how many states apply to them from the outset?
So…what’s the take from the real eggheads on this? Start selling plasma to lay in LOTS of supplies before the election or just buy what we can without risking life and limb?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
They’re trying to kill the “personal H-bomb” strawman arguments.
As to incorporation, the Bill of Rights, as originally passed, was held to limit the Federal Government only, not the states. The 14th Amendment made it binding on the states…but there is no ruling specifically saying the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. It’s a bridge to cross later.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Don’t think for even one minute that this country has a written constitution. It has a permanent constitutional convention called the United States Supreme Court. Don’t rely on any constitutional provision, statute or precedent. Lower courts are bound by them. The Supreme Court is not. It will decide whatever it wants. Let’s just sit and wait for our black-robed Czars to issue their ukase.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Mike M,
Please give me a citation for that. I can understand how the vast majority of the BOR would apply only to the federal government. However, the 2nd A states this right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Nowhere is there any indication that this infringement is restricted to the federal government. in addition, with the Constitution being the Mother contract, then all of the BOR would automatically be incorporated. If you don’t like them then don’t join. But hey, I’m not a lawyer.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Armed and Safe had a post not too long ago dealing with incorporation.