Posted on 08/09/2007 6:06:52 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - August 8, 2007) - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a leading law firm, is using the collection of founding documents compiled on ConSource, the first comprehensive online collection of Constitution-related source materials, to research and present the District of Columbia's position that the District's handgun ban withstands Constitutional scrutiny. These documents will play an important role in the petition for certiorari presented to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn the March 9 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holding that the District's law violates the Second Amendment.
"This case has great implications for gun laws across the country," said Tom Goldstein, the head of Akin Gump's Supreme Court practice. "It is extremely important that we get the constitutional history right. With the help of ConSource, we will be able to access the full documentary record of the Second Amendment in presenting the case to the Supreme Court."
Through ConSource, Akin Gump has access to digitized collections relating to the Second Amendment: the Anti-Federalist Papers, the state ratification debates for seven states, and the legislative history of the Bill of Rights. Online access to these documents will drastically cut the research time necessary to research the case.
"Akin Gump is using this resource in one of many ways we envisioned this project could be used," said Lorianne Updike, President & Executive Director of The Constitutional Sources Project, which is creating ConSource. "Attorneys and practice groups are able to easily find prominent and obscure historical documents relating to different provisions in the Constitution via ConSource, and will soon be able to create their own collections, post briefs, and publish or block access to their practice groups' work product."
ConSource houses more than a thousand of the most important founding documents from over 30 archives across the eastern seaboard, the Midwest, and California, and will soon be adding documents from an archive in France.
To view a full case study regarding Akin Gump and the firm's use of ConSource, visit www.ConSource.org/akingump.
About The Constitutional Sources Project
Founded in May of 2005, The Constitutional Sources Project created the first, comprehensive, online library of Constitution-related source materials and provides free access to "We the People" at www.ConSource.org. Full access to the site and collections will be available on Constitution Day, September 17, 2007. This new medium will give the Founders, Reconstructionists, and original Feminists voices in the classroom and courtroom, providing everyone from the sixth grader to the Supreme Court justice with the best history of the Constitution. Collections include James Madison's Notes of the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, the Anti- and Pro-Federalist Papers, State Ratification Debates for seven states, the Bill of Rights' Legislative History and 188 personal letters detailing the workings behind-the-scenes during ratification and the passage of the Bill of Rights called the Founders' Papers.
About Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Founded in 1945, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a leading international law firm, numbers more than 900 lawyers with offices in Austin, Beijing, Dallas, Dubai, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, New York, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Taipei and Washington.
ping
Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.
The Parker decision is very comprehensive and persuasive.
Meanwhile they'd just PO'd one of the largest groups of potential customers in the Nation.
Bye bye Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
One of their "fields" is advising cities and towns on how to retain their military bases under the BRAC process. I hope every one of them loses a base to some "arms rights friendly" location.
Who were the ones who insisted on the Bill of Rights. Although once the Constitution was passed, the Federalists too supported the creation and provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Yeah, and the theory was the enumerating rights would be a bad thing, since it would prejudice unenumerated rights (since OF COURSE, the feds would stick to enumerated powers only). Thank God for the Anti-federalists insistence. Still in all, I have yet to find a SCOTUS cite saying the Anti-Federalist Papers are to be regarded as a tool for interpreting the Constitution.
Actually they are part of the organized militia. However the parties to a contract cannot define the terms of the contract *after* the contract is written, thus the term "militia" means what it meant September 25, 1789 when the First Congress passed the Bill of Rights to be sent to the sates, and until December 15, 1791 when they were declared ratified. However the the Militia Act of 1972 does tell us what Congress thought the militia was. The states may have, and in fact *do* have different definitions. Texas defines it thusly:
Title 4 § 431.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(2) "State militia" means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) "State military forces" means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.
(4) "Texas National Guard" means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.
§ 431.081. PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY; PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO ENLIST.
(a) A person is subject to military duty if the person is:
(1) able-bodied;
(2) a citizen or a person of foreign birth who has declared an intent to become a citizen;
(3) a resident of the state;
(4) at least 18 and not more than 60 years of age; and
(5) not exempt under Subsection (b) or (c) or United States law.
However all that really doesn't matter, the Constitution says "the right of the people not right or power of the militia, or power of the states. Militia service is a duty, not a right, keeping and bearing arms *is* a right, a right of the people. Texas' state constitution terms it a right of the citizen and they aren't protecting their own militia against being disarmed by itself.
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State;...".
At least they've got one thing right. And of course that scares them Shiiteless.
That is how I always thought of them.
In order of importance to the law firm
The plain point of the Militia Act of 1792 - if you follow its full wording - is to ensure the general population is armed, from which a subset thereof may be assembled into a unit. It made sure that any who could be called would be ready. It also established a minimum level of preparedness, not a maximum. It also assumed one would arm himself, THEN register as being so armed.
The first principle of the 2nd Amendment is that ALL may be armed, from which subsets may be extracted/called for active service. The notion that only those subject to active service be armed is plainly preposterous, limiting national defense for no justifiable (or even articulable) reason.
Easily rebutted. The Act in question required citizens to so arm themselves BEFORE enrolling. It also punished citizens for not arming themselves to a minimum standard outside active/imminent service; absolutely nothing hinted at punishment for simply being armed, even with high-end military arms.
Modern equivalent of what our Founding Fathers actually enacted would be: every 16-year-old boy would be legally obligated to buy an M16 (plus case of ammo, 10 magazines, MOLLE pack, flak vest, and helmet), _then_ register with Selective Service System ... and, as is now, the chance of being called up for active service rather slim. (Coupled with this: the government would be obligated to provide periodic training for all enrollees in each county.)
It's not. Was replaced by the National Guard act (whatever its actual name).
Which is why DC is asking for every conceivable delay, including citing "we just hired a whole bunch of high-powered lawyers and need lots of extra time to figure out how to word 'we want to appeal the Parker verdict'."
In Federalist #29, Hamilton is actually arguing against having all individuals armed and trained to fight, saying that doing so "would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Bear in mind that the second amendment refers to a “well organized” Militia, not an unorganized militia. That’s not to say that a state cannot protect the RKBA of the unorganized militia — they can and do.
Robert, You know I don’t respond to you. Please don’t bother posting to me again.
I was quoting current Federal Code, which superceeds Texas law with respect to the Federal militia.
In a modern context, the aim of the Founders was to create an institution somewhat like the Swiss Army of today. I say somewhat because the level of training envisioned for the Militia (at least if you can call Hamilton authoritative) would be somewhat less than the Swiss system. On the other hand, the idea that (basically) all male citizens would own a military pattern rifle, ammo, and gear is certainly part of the original intent.
Yep. You have six months to arm yourself with a musket after being notified by your state.
The preferred weapon for hunting (and self defense) was the rifle due to its accuracy. But rifles were expensive, difficult to load quickly, and fouled after two or three rounds from the black powder.
The musket, though innacurate, was inexpensive, quick to load, didn't foul (due to the smoothbore design), and was ideal for Militia volley fire on the battlefield.
Which is why I don't understand the rush to put this issue in front of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.