D.C. v. Heller “BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF ORGANIZATIONS AND SCHOLARS CORRECTING MYTHS AND

[jody]

MISREPRESENTATIONS COMMONLY
DEPLOYED BY OPPONENTS OF AN
INDIVIDUAL-RIGHTS-BASED
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT”

F. The District Falsely Claims That The
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights
Does Not Include Keeping Arms For
Self-Defense

The District claims that the Pennsylvania Declaration
of Rights includes an “example of the dominant
focus of these provisions on communal defense<.>”
(Pet.Br. 31.) However, the Declaration states that
“the people have a right to bear arms for the defense
of themselves and the state<.>” Pennsylvania
Declaration of Rights art. 13 (1776). James Wilson, a
delegate to the Federal Convention and Pennsylvania
Supreme Court Justice, stated that the right to bear
arms was related to “the great natural law of self
preservation,” and that it “is one of our many renewals
of the Saxon regulations. ‘They were bound,’ says
Mr. Selden, to keep arms for the preservation of
the kingdom, and of their own persons.’ ” James
Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson
84-85 (Lorenzo Press 1804) (emphasis supplied). Far
from suggesting that the right to bear arms was
primarily military, the text and history of the Pennsylvania
Declaration embraced the familiar purpose
of self-defense.

At the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, the
dissenters proposed a bill of rights, including a provision
likely based on the Pennsylvania Declaration:
That the people have a right to bear arms
for the defense of themselves and their
own state, or the United States, or for the
purpose of killing game; and no law
shall be passed for disarming the people
or any of them, unless for crimes committed,
or real danger of public injury from individuals<.>

Dissent of the Minority (December 18, 1787) Pennsylvania
Ratifying Convention (emphasis supplied),
reprinted in The Essential Bill of Rights, supra, at
309. This provision envisioned an individual right,
with a self-defense component and a military component,
and was intended to prevent laws from disarming
the people “or any of them.”

During America’s founding era, in both America
and England, the idea of helplessly waiting for the
police to come to the rescue was not familiar. There
were no professional police. It was the duty of free
people to arm and defend themselves and their communities.
Don B. Kates, The Second Amendment and
the Ideology of Self-Protection 9 Constitutional Comment.
87, 92 (1992).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights?

Does it include the right of the people of the District of Columbia to have the right to have representation in such matters before Congress?
























































Didn't think so. So much for their notion of rights

[Lex1775]

2. Why would it?

The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights was ratified on August 16, 1776. Long before D.C ever existed.

You should direct your anger at Virginia or Maryland. Or at the Federal Government.

[jody]

3. PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment,

PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR.

PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. Be Gone

Good point: It has no legitimate authority over the laws enacted in the District of Columbia.

[sergeiAK]

6. That's why it's an amicus brief.

The Brady Center wrote one, as did W's DoJ. The point of an amicus curae brief is to inform the court of the opinions of another interested party.

If you want representation for DC, write Congressmen and Senators, along with the president. I'd vote for it.

Of course, you could start a revolution. :+

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. OH GOOD GRIEF

I'll leave you to your notion that my member of Congress has a vote in the matter.






DELUSIONAL. Such a friend of ..........YOUR ............. Court.

[sergeiAK]

8. I meant Congress-critters in general. Good luck

"DELUSIONAL. Such a friend of ..........YOUR ............. Court."

Such vitriol. Why?

An amicus brief is intended to inform the court of other opinions. Regardless of the opinion, they are generally from parties with some interest in the outcome of the case. Since this case could affect PA law, they wrote an amicus brief. Same reason W had the DoJ write one. Same reason NYC wrote one. People want their opinions to be voiced. This is an established method of doing so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. A Friend of the Court Brief

......... would imply that the 'friend' had some representation in deciding who is on your court.


DC does not.

[sergeiAK]

10. As I've said, I support DC getting representation.

But DC residents will have to be the ones to fight for it. Write the president (not that W will do much, but the next one might). Write Congress-critters that you think might be sympathetic. I bet Kucinich would take on the cause.

If you can't get Congress/the President to take it up, why not sue like Heller did?

Or, you can take the age-old, time-tested route, and start a revolution. :+

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Hmmm

Please don't tell me to write your President and your member of Congress asking them to give me the right to vote.

Why don't you do that instead?

The fact that DC residents have no voice in your government is an embarrassment you share with your government.

[sabre73]

13. Typical FTGFN

Not willing to fight the good fight at all; instead you say:

"Please don't tell me to write your President and your member of Congress asking them to give me the right to vote.

Why don't you do that instead?"

If you are not willing to fight for a change in the "system" then SHUT THE HELL UP!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. Curious

I'm kind of curious to know why you think your Montana member of Congress would give a rat's sh*t about what I want since I have no voice in how he gets elected .............. and yet I have to depend on HIM to have New Columbia entered in the United States.

Write your Congresman is not dismissive......... it's appropriate. If you truly want to help the people of the District of Columbia you will do just that.

PS - Montana is ranked 44 in state population not too far behind DC and yet you have a voice in YOUR government.

PSS- Your intellectual prowess is so undeveloped that you seem to honestly think I am not fighting for change....... must have been my DU membership name, my avatar, my post signature or the hundreds of posts related to the issue that you missed. LOL.

[sabre73]

17. BUmper stickers and slogans don't make you a fighter!

And don't confuse my current state as my only residence. I have lived in every state here in the continental 48 states. You seem to think that the world begins and ends at your front door so don't act like you are mighty because a large number of idiots congregate in your area. I live hear by choice not out of fear for change.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. As If THAT is ALL You Have Seen or Heard

Once again, you miss the point.

The point is that YOU as a citizen with a voting member of Congress have more of an ability to effect change by writing your member of Congress than me.

If you want to have the nerve to lecture me from thousands of miles from DC about the world beginning and ending at my 'front door', I would suggest you find a way to refrain stay and away from our 'front doors'.

Is there anything in your post that is not evidence of your pure hatred of me and the half million others you characterize as idiots? Sure hasn't stopped you from trying to overthrow our laws.

No wonder you have no sense of community if you have 'lived in every state here in the continental 48 states.'

[L1A1Rocker]

16. What did you really expect?

[sabre73]

18. Honestly..... Not much! N/T

[Boomer 50]

20. It has nothing to do with representation on the court

It refers to the manner of the brief being in favor of either the plaintiff or the respondant. That is the "friend" refered to. In this case, the amicus by the states is friendly towards Heller (who had to approve it's inclusion as an amicus brief before it would be accepted by the court). So, yes, it has direct bearing as the respondant (Heller) approved it's inclusion as he felt it pertains directly to the outcome of this case.

[L1A1Rocker]

14. MY court rocks!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Thanks for the Post

............even if it has no authority.

Let's review it again

That the people have a right to bear arms
for the defense of themselves and their
own state, or the United States, or for the
purpose of killing game; and no law
shall be passed for disarming the people
or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................. wonder what that means.

[L1A1Rocker]

12. There have been some very Amici filed

on behalf of heller.