Historic Supreme Court Brief Filed in Second Amendment Challenge to D.C. Gun Ban

dcguncase.com ^ | February 4th, 2008 | Alan Gura

[ctdonath2]

Today, attorneys challenging Washington, D.C’s 31-year-old gun prohibition laws filed their written arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree, but I am not thrilled with the solicitor general’s filing in this matter.

[dljordan]

“Yep, it’s been 70 years since the Supreme Court has directly ruled on the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I have a feeling this will be an historic ruling, and the liberals will be driven nuts by a court ruling that recognizes the plain language of the 2nd amendment.”

I don’t see how they can rule favorably in this. How can we continue our slide into a socialist police state if the people are allowed to own all those assault rifles? A ruling in favor of an individual right would wreck years of effort.

[Beagle8U]

“First of all, where’s the moron who would seriously contend that religion, morality, or knowledge were unnecessary for good government?”

Its common “knowledge” that without “religion” and “morality” there would be no “good government”.

[Lancer_N3502A]

A very powerful piece indeed. An exceptional amount of research and study went into this, but I’m still amazed that there are enough pro-gun legal minds left in this country to put it all together and present it in such a fashion.

[dljordan]

“The Supreme Court CAN’T affirm the written meaning of the Second Amendment! 20,000 local laws, Federal laws, the 1968 Kennedy Firearms Act, the 1934 Machine Gun Act, the BATF regulations, they all would lose standing like a fart in a hurricane!”

I think you’re right. We’re going to see some really twisted language and reasoning coming out of SCOTUS. The pressure on them will be enormous.

[robertpaulsen]

"Prohibitions of religion, enforced..um..creative morality are not unusual, and suppression of knowledge is routinely practiced by most governments that ever existed."

I would not call that "good" government. I'd be hard pressed to even call that a "government".

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I fully expect DC to remain a Constitution free zone after the SC gets done with their twisting gyrations and emitting penumbras from their posteriors.

I’d love to be surprised, but Rights are stolen by governments, not bestowed and never restored.

[robertpaulsen]

Thank you. An island of sanity in an ocean of idiots.

[robertpaulsen]

Leaving us free to postulate what the preamble is not.

Do you have an explanation for what the second amendment preamble is?

[patton]

“The lineal descendants of personal arms of the type in
predictable civilian usage are thus protected, but modern
weapons of the type that serve no ordinary civilian function are not.” pp44

I have to re-read pages 52 and 65, as I think we might be F%CKED.

[robertpaulsen]

"Where's the answer to the proposition that a preamble cannot negate an operative provision of law? You didn't answer that one, did you?"

Yes, I did.

[Amendment10]

After giving the referenced materials a quick look, I am disturbed that there is any question as to whether or not the 2nd A. protects personal rights from both the federal and state governments. As mentioned in related threads, although Heller is not a state power case, 14th A. lawmakers decided that the 2nd A. protects the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments. This is not guesswork on my part. John Bingham, the main author of the 14th A. clearly included the 2nd A. when he referenced the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made applicable to the states. See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

Again, I find it disturbing that the written arguments concerning Heller seemingly reflect that constitutional experts are not familiar with the Congressional Record as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.

Finally, this post (<-click) provides more information as to the probable intent of the Founders for the scope of the 2nd A. and how the 14th A. later broadened the scope of that amendment.

Fact-based corrections to the above information are welcome.

[ctdonath2]

But under your reasoning, it’s up to the government to define what constitutes “good government” and prohibit anything they decide isn’t facilitating it.

[ctdonath2]

Nicely put.

[ctdonath2]

Do you have an explanation for what the second amendment preamble is?

Haven't read the brief yet, eh? Come back when you do.

[Abundy]

Thanks.

I've been purposely ignoring him for a while, but he is such a jack@ss I couldn't take it any more.

I'm hoping that when SCOTUS rules against DC and refute his claim that he will slash his wrists in front of someone with a camera so I can watch it over and over on youtube when I'm having a bad day.

Of course that is only a pipe dream...he'll be on here lamenting how collectively stupid the Justices are in getting it wrong.

[ctdonath2]

I think it will be a very viable argument to point out that the prefatory clause refers to militia use, and that “common use” - being not in the wording of the entire amendment - is an inappropriate construct as “militia suitable” arms are not necessarily suitable for non-militia use, but the arms being protected are at minimum protected precisely because they ARE suitable for military use.

[jdege]

Leaving us free to postulate what the preamble is not.

We know what the preamble is not - it's not operative language.

Do you have an explanation for what the second amendment preamble is?

It's explanatory - providing one of the reasons for the operative language. When the language of the operative language is unclear, a preamble can be used to explicate that unclearness. But a preamble cannot be used to limit or restrict the operative text.

That was the accepted understanding of statutory construction at the time the 2nd was drafted. As proven by the precedents the brief cited.

Like I said - quality research.

You disagree? I'll tell you where to go with your disagreement. Go digging through 18th century court decisions, looking for contradictory precedents. Unless and until some are found, I'm going to have to consider this issue settled.

Lot's of luck.

[Abundy]

I'm going to have to consider this issue settled.

Oh, it's settled for everyone but him. And he'll just regurgitate the same stupid question in a different form later.