TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/ ... l#district

Currently there are 9 Amicus briefs posted Against our side.

Man, is that not a list of the usual suspects or what!

where is our side?

The NRA is preparing a brief, but it's not finished.

- Jim

They get to look at the other side for about a month before theirs are due.

Then, I think, the other side gets a chance to rebut.

seamusTX wrote:The NRA is preparing a brief, but it's not finished.

- Jim

I thought it was complete. But they may need to hold off until Levy team submits theirs, and give it a touch up after they get to look it over.

tomneal wrote: They get to look at the other side for about a month before theirs are due.

Then, I think, the other side gets a chance to rebut.

I sure appreciate everyones patience with my unending questions, but I'm pretty excited about this although i understand that I'm setting myself up for disappointment, and that its unlikely that its going to go 100% in the direction I want to see it go. This is history in the making and the first time in my lifetime that our side is striking out for our actual constitutional rights. It's kind of embarrassing for me to suddenly realize how little I understand the workings of the 3rd branch. This case isn't handled at all like it the courts in "Law and Order".

Here's their current position:

Statement of the National Rifle Association

By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox

On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents' homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.'s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government's recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is "central to the preservation of liberty." The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban "a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice," the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government's position is also that a "heightened" level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one's own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that "the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment." A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.'s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

... I'm pretty excited about this although i understand that I'm setting myself up for disappointment, and that its unlikely that its going to go 100% in the direction I want to see it go.

I don't expect to see a broad interpretation of the 2nd. I expect a VERY narrow ruling. Hopefully, something that at least says DC residents can "keep" arms. With no answer about how they can acquire firearms, other than moving to another state. Buying a gun. Then moving back. With no provision to moving them from the car to the house.

Of course I am hoping they will rule that the 2nd means exactly what it says as read by stevie_d_64

It is interesting to me, after scrolling through all of the briefs while my wife watches her football games, to note that there are three separate and distinct arguements presented, all based on many of the same authorities.

Several present an arguement that the 2nd does not protect any sort of individual right, while others citing the same authorities say "If the court holds that it is in individual right, they must allow "reasonable" regulation." and of course there is the group that says that the right only protects the right federally and that states and cities can do what they want.

I think that if I was a JOTSC, I might find all of the arguements somewhat less than convincing.

You make an outstanding comment there Jim...

If all the arguments for and against the case don't hunt...Then I feel an originalists interpretation of the meaning/definition of the Second Amendment is necessary (obviously), and must be made as final as possible...There can be no other option...And there can be no way it should be allowed to go against its true meaning...

This is it...

The Heller team says they will file their brief on 4 Feb

http://dcguncase.com/blog/

Bump.

The Heller briefs are due today. Just a reminder to get up to speed (if you need to) prior to when those are posted online later.

And now we have the respondent brief:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... 0290bs.pdf

Outstanding brief.

Notice that they went for "strict scrutiny"? If we get that, it will be a huge win.

IMO, they took every one of the spurious "arguments" in the Petitioners' briefs and smacked them out of the ball park.

BTW, notice the description of (2A) "protected" arms. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns, of the type that would be commonly possessed by individuals and used both in militia service and for self defense.

No area or crew-served weapons. No WMD's.

Of course, this is just a brief. We'll see what The Court thinks.

All in all, this case is looking better and better for the pro 2A side. I'll bet the Brady's are going nuts.