Ten Amicus briefs filed on behalf of Heller

[Boomer 50]

You can find the individual Amicus briefs at dcguncase.com click on the recent filings page.

I think many will find the Amicus filed by GeorgiaCarry.org to be quite enlightening as to the origins of gun control. They don't pull many punches though.

In any event, all of the briefs are something that we should all read.

I had to laugh at the NRA brief.... they couldn't pass up a chance at self promotion, see page 17 in their submission.

[shireen]

1. is this for real?

I just looked at the FAQ at dcguncase.com

1. Washington, D.C. requires that all guns be registered, but has forbidden handguns from being registered for over 30 years. This amounts to a complete ban on the possession of handguns in Washington, D.C.

2. Washington, D.C. requires that even if one happens to have a legally registered handgun, dating from 1976 or earlier, the gun cannot be moved from room to room within one’s home without a special permit. And permits are not available.

3. Washington, D.C. requires that all firearms, including pre-ban handguns and lawfully registered rifles and shotguns, be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times while kept at home. The law exempts guns at a place of business, or while the gun is used for recreational shooting, which doesn’t exist in Washington. But there is no exemption for having a functional firearm inside the house, even if someone inside is under attack by criminals. In other words, all functional firearms are banned from the homes of law-abiding Washingtonians.



If that's true, that's utterly insane! How the hell with DC get stuck with such stupid laws?

I'm going to check out the other briefs, but if anyone's familiar with this case, are these people exaggerating? IF it's not accurate, what's really going on?

[Lex1775]

2. The first sentence in #3 is true. I don't know about the rest of #3 though.

[ac2007]

6. #3 is completely accurate

#3 is the main reason the Heller case was brought in the first place. Since there is no exception for self-defense or any legitimate purpose for assembling a functional arm in the home, the moment you do so, you are in violation of DC law. The District tried to weasel around that in their brief to the Court by arguing that the law doesn't really mean that and simply sidestepped the issue through semantics.

Even if you disassemble the gun for gun, put it back together to check everything before locking it up, you're a criminal. There is no way for you to have a functional arm in your home under any circumstance without breaking the law.

There are many other ridiculous, so-called "reasonable" gun laws in the District. Beyond this one, my personal favorite is the one that says any gun that can accept more than 12 rounds of ammunition is considered a "machine gun". I'm not kidding. Doesn't matter if it is or not. Under their definition, 12+ rounds is a lethal bullet hose even if it is a .22.

[mvccd1000]

3. Unfortunately, yes.

That's why there's a lawsuit.

[krispos42]

4. Because guns can ONLY be used for legitimate sporting purposes, of course

And they'll toss your ass in jail if you even try to use them for non-legitimate purposes, like, say, self-defense.

:crazy:

[benEzra]

5. Yes, it's true. And the repubs at the Brady Campaign call this "reasonable gun control"...

and wish to bring it to your home as well...

[slackmaster]

7. It is significant that the Brady Center doesn't include DC in its annual state "score cards"

They'd have to give DC a near-perfect score, which would undermine their attempts to portray their positions as moderate and reasonable. That coupled with DC's exceptionally high rates of violent crime would dispel any notion that the Brady Center ratings have anything to do with public safety.

[bossy22]

8. i remember listening to a radio show broadcast

in which Paul Helmke (president of the brady bunch) was arguing with the president of the Virginia citizens defense league about the D.C. gun ban. Helmke was touting that we should let localities make their own gun laws but then the president of the VCDL brought up that he encouraged a federal assault weapons ban which over-ruled what many states wanted. Helmke started stuttering (mostly because of the foot in his mouth)

The Brady bunch mislead to get their agenda across and use the mantra "the ends always justify the means" (typical republican mantra also)...and they say gun control is a democratic thing......

[SteveM]

11. D.C.'s efforts to disarm/disable citizens are clinical if not sadistic.

[gorfle]

9. Great reading!

Direct link to the case filings:

http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

The Amicus briefs are fantastic reading. I have only skimmed the first 3. I also intend to read the briefs on the anti-gun side.

[Indy Lurker]

10. Professors of Lingusistics

Professors of Linguistics

I just read their brief, and while I was reading it, most of it sounded like they were in support of individual right to own arms (towards supporting a militia)

They did an excellent job of saying militias couldn't function without the right to bear arms, but they never said:

1. that was the only reason to have the right to bear arms, and
2. That the militia (armed citizenry)is no longer valuable today.


Their final statement was:

(by their reading)"...one finds a balanced text that protects the right of people to serve in a well regulated militia and keep arms for such service."

That seems right to me, firearms of military value, including handguns, may be kept, since a well regulated militia (citizenry) is necessary for the security of a free state.


Their conclusion then goes 180 Degrees and says:

"for all of the forgoing reasons, judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed."



BTW I also read the City of Chicago brief and it goes a whole different direction, trying to say that "the right of the people" only pertain to infringement by Federal Powers, not to State or Local Powers.

This would seem to hang DC out in the wind, since they are not their own state.

You think they would get their act together and form a unified front.

[SteveM]

12. The 14th Amendment was cited in the Heller brief...

This would seem to answer Chicago's contention that the 2nd only ensured against infringement by the Feds.

Isn't it ironic that an essentially "state's rights" argument would be made on behalf of D.C., which is populated mainly by African-Americans who know all too well the consequences of states rights?

[SteveM]

13. Great post. Damn good brief. This brings to mind Dick Gregory:

"Wait a minute, wait a minute, officer. You have the nerve to ask me
how come Negroes do so much cuttin'? 'Cause you don't sell us no damn guns."


Attributed to comedian and activist Dick Gregory as quoted in (hard copy)
FACT , Vol. 1, Issue 2, March-April, 1964. Article: "The
Psychological Meaning of Anti-Negro Jokes" by D. J. Bennett. Termed an "applied
psychologist," Bennett called this an "expression of jokes Negroes tell against
themselves......is tinged with masochism."

Funny, I thought it was reportage.

[L1A1Rocker]

14. 23 now

The DCguncase website now has 23 briefs listed. Check out the one filed by the Pink Pistols. They have some great arguments that are well reasoned and well cited.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

[Boomer 50]

15. I've read all of them.....

much to the pain in my weary eyes at this hour. I can't see how DC can counter many of the arguments made in most of these briefs. DC's side is toast on this one.

I don't think that SCOTUS can find narrowly in this instance. They are going to have to shred a lot of Federal and state level law with this case or face a plethora of follow up cases to destroy bans and restrictions nationwide. I suspect that SCOTUS will officially incorporate the 2nd under the 14th given some of the historical data provided in the various amicus submitted.

I for one will be very happy when the machine gun ban is eliminated. I'll lose a fortune in my collection but it's worth it to fully regain our freedoms.

My most pressing question is this.... how will SCOTUS handle the carry part of the question they put forth? I have a feeling that if SCOTUS smacks DC hard on this one, all of the states that require permits are going to find out that they can't legally do that. Or there may be an alternative that I am just not seeing that is viable. I don't know.

I just hope that this decision will stop the immoral and unconstitutional assault on our freedoms by ignorant people that don't have a clue.

[L1A1Rocker]

16. up to 24 now

and I believe that today is the last day for filing.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. 45 briefs in favor of Heller

Just popped over the dcguncase.com and they have 45 amicus briefs posted in favor of Heller. WOW, some of them are very good.

[bossy22]

18. 46 now

:)