Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

danb said:

Giffords brief is terrible. They repeat an argument rejected by the court per curium in Caetano, and are basically looking to overturn Chicago v McDonald with their states rights argument, nevermind the fact that the court very recently referred to McDonald as good law.

Their brief is so bad I doubt even the minority dissent will pay it much attention.

But I am thankful that they wasted their donors money on such a bad brief. I hope that they wasted all of it and they have no more money.

Click to expand...

motorcoachdoug said:

I wonder did 2ca rule the way they did because they knew the law violated the US Constitution but they do not want to take the blame for ruling that it violated the constitution? In their minds let SCOTUS take the hit instead of us that way we do not have to deal with the sh** storm that will be caused by NYC and Bloomturd ??

Click to expand...

This amicus curiae brief is submitted on behalf of historian Patrick J. Charles to inform the Court about the history of the laws governing the transportation and carrying of dangerous weapons from the thirteenth century through the twentieth century, while pointing out some of the pitfalls created by faulty scholarship in this area. Amicus curiae is the author of three books and more than twenty articles on the history of the Second Amendment, firearms and weapons laws, and the use of history as a jurisprudential tool.

Amicus curiae’s scholarship has been cited and relied upon by six Cir-cuit Courts of Appeals and by this Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Amicus curiae currently serves as a Senior Historian for both the United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The information and analysis contained herein are solely those of the amicus curiae, and not those of the USAF, US-SOCOM, or the Department of Defense.

Click to expand...

Opposition to extension of the arms right to freedmen was starkly illustrated in the Maryland constitutional convention of 1867, where a delegate proposed adding to the state bill of rights that “every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.” Phillip B. Perlman, Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1867 at 150-51(1867). Another delegate moved to weaken that to refer only to “every white citizen,” while still another chimed in, “Every citizen of the State means every
31white citizen, and none other.” Id. Given the opposition to recognizing a right of non-whites to bear arms, it was proposed that “the citizen shall not be deprived of the right to keep arms on his premises.” Id. That too was rejected

Click to expand...

Kharn said:

I'm enjoying the US brief, the Solicitor General's office thoroughly tells NYC where to stick their transport ban.

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. New York City’s transport ban infringes the right
to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments."

"Few laws in the history of
our Nation, or even in contemporary times, have come
close to such a sweeping prohibition on the transporta-
tion of arms. And on some of the rare occasions in the
19th and 20th centuries when state and local govern-
ments have adopted such prohibitions, state courts have
struck them down. That is enough to establish that the
transport ban is unconstitutional."

"In Heller, this Court explained that the Second
Amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” without
suggesting that the guarantee is limited to the home."

Click to expand...

danb said:

I love Gura:

Click to expand...

Courts have largely failed to absorb the news that Americans enjoy a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Heller requires no “expansion.” And the time has come for it to be enforced.

Click to expand...

Some Guy said:

I find several of the briefs disturbing in that they continue to use language like that found in the brief from the USG: "It applies regardless of the manner in which the owner carries the firearm—in fact, even if the owner unloads the firearm, locks it away, and keeps it separate from the ammunition. (USG amicus brief, pp 16 and other locations.)

I don't like that this language is included or given any sense of deference. It creeps towards normalization of a requirement that firearms must be transported only when unloaded, locked away and separate from ammunition. This "new" requirement is contrary to the intended purposes of bearing arms and to the definition of "to ... bear" in itself. It is NOT traditional, and it is not historically sound. At best it is a current anomaly in several of the states. I believe language like this represents an infringement that should be resisted and strongly so.

Click to expand...

danb said:

I think that is a misread of the USG brief. "Keep" arms includes the right to take it to other places where its lawful to possess.

I would not get hope's up for a broad ruling including "bear" or outside the home carry. I think that consistent with Robert's court, the opinion will be exceedingly narrow. An opinion confined to the facts of this case would not address outside the home self defense, and that's what I expect - a narrow opinion.

The USG brief is along the lines of what I expect. If the court addresses "bear" they will probably take Roger's v Grewal. The good news: I can see 9 justices signing on to the USG brief.

Click to expand...