BRIEF OF DEM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE (D.C. v. Heller)

[jody]

“BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL”

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS (all Democrats)
Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14)
Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
Representative Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)*
Representative Al Green (TX-09)
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Representative Michael Honda (CA-15)
Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Representative Albert R. Wynn (MD-04

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The decision below reads the Second Amendment as creating an individual right to possess firearms for purposes unrelated to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. In so doing, the decision rendered meaningless the Amendment’s opening clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”), disregarded this Court’s settled precedent limiting the application of the Amendment to those situations where the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia is potentially impaired, and failed to evaluate the statutes at issue using standards anything like those ordinarily applied when (unlike here) constitutional rights are implicated.

Under this Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939); Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980)), that provision lends no support to Respondent’s claims, since he does not assert that his desired use or possession of the firearms at issue relates to “the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,”3 and the decision below should be reversed.

Had the Court been presented with a colorable claim that the challenged conduct infringed the “right to keep and bear arms” in a manner inconsistent with the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, this Court’s precedents suggest that judgments about whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon is consistent with the Second Amendment should be left to the political branches. The Constitution’s express assignment of responsibility for the nation’s militia to Congress (see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 & 16), and the absence of “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for resolving such controversies, militate in favor of such a result. This approach would be in accord with the state of affairs in the decades since Miller was decided. During that time, Congress has legislated actively to regulate or prohibit the use or possession of certain weapons – mindful of any limitations imposed by the Second Amendment, and guided by this Court’s decision in Miller. 4

It appears the congresspersons are claiming constitutional powers via its militia authority to make laws that infringe upon a member of the organized and unorganized militia's right to keep and bear arms even though infringement is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment.

[jmg257]

1. EXACTLY WHY the 2nd was passed - to keep these idiots from infringing on our natural right.

Those ratifiers were genius to see it coming, just seems like they weren't explicit enough - I guess.

But HOW dense ARE these politicians? Just what IS it about "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" that is not clear??

And now they are referring to Miller to SUPPORT their lies? "arms in common military use" CERTAINLY includes M4s, M16s, M249s, M9s, M14s, etc. etc., let alone ARs, M1As, short barrelled shotguns, etc.

Dumb ass idiots...Don't tread on me OR my rights!

[pipoman]

2. Is it just me

or does this list of supporters look shorter than it would have a year or two or three ago.

[jody]

3. Thanks, I missed that and you may be right. I hope so! n/t

[slackmaster]

4. Their language shows a complete lack of understanding of the roles of government and the people

Under our system of laws and government, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the body of law do not and cannot create rights.

All rights exist except those that have been curtailed through due process of law. The rights specifically mentioned in the BoR are enumerated because they are especially important, but as stated in the Ninth Amendment they are not the full set of rights we are supposed to enjoy. The Second Amendment recognizes a right that was generally understood to exist; it doesn't create anything. It limits the powers of government.

These fools are an embarrasment to our party.

[virginia mountainman]

5. A list of Democrats..

Backing Bushco in the Courts, to restrict the bill of rights...


O Peachy......Just what we need in a important election year.

[benEzra]

6. They are also going against the Democratic party platform...

which recognizes the 2nd Amendment as protecting an individual right rather than a nebulous "collective right" (a term which IMHO is an oxymoron).