Georgiapacking.org banner

21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Re: From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

Wiley said:
One of the primary reasons for the requested delay -- and probably for the decision to appeal itself -- is the fact that DC has managed to hire a prominent anti-gun law professor to head up their case. The
Professor only became available in the past month or so and they wanted him to be able to supervise the whole shebang. (Or at least that's what I think.)
I wonder who they got...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,145 Posts
Everybody please read this article slowly and in detail.

Singer indicated the case would not be argued by an outside Supreme Court advocate, but rather a lawyer on her staff, though she did not say which one.

A natural candidate, says Henigan, would be Alan Morrison, the former head of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, who is leaving a Stanford Law School teaching position to join Singer's staff as a special counsel beginning Sept. 4. "He's a huge talent," says Henigan, who also says the city's solicitor general, Todd Kim, is "a terrific lawyer."

Morrison, who has argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court, confirms he has been working unofficially on several projects including the gun case recently.
There is a lot in the article that is worth the time it takes to read and comprehend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
Even if the Court declares it protects an individual right, the scope of the right will have to be fleshed out, he says. "It will take an eternity to resolve."
Ugh :roll:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,145 Posts
Brian618 said:
Even if the Court declares it protects an individual right, the scope of the right will have to be fleshed out, he says. "It will take an eternity to resolve."
Ugh :roll:
Keep in mind that this is the way First Amendment legislation works, too. If Gura had argued for open carry in DC, we would not even know about his case, because it would never have gone anywhere.

First step - get the Second declared individual.

He has done that. In order to do it, the scope of the case had to be very narrow.

Next step - incorporation against the states.

In order to do that, the next case will have to be very limited as well. Challenging the ban on further manufacture of machine guns for civilian use will have the opposite effect from what is intended. It would be better for the next case to come out of Chicago or San Francisco or New York, challenging a very restrictive law as violative of the Second Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
I find Alan Gura's comments on the NRA interesting for certain.

the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly"
years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown
In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim.
the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. "The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case.."
This guy has an interesting thought also
"The NRA would lose its loudest fund-raising drum if this question is answered," says Carl Bogus, a leading scholar who favors the militia rights view of the amendment.
Wonder if they brought this guy in to their staff just for this case? So they could say that it was one of "their own" handling this.
Singer indicated the case would not be argued by an outside Supreme Court advocate, but rather a lawyer on her staff, though she did not say which one.

A natural candidate, says Henigan, would be Alan Morrison, the former head of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, who is leaving a Stanford Law School teaching position to join Singer's staff as a special counsel beginning Sept. 4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
The DC legal staff was out of its league at the circut court level. At the SC they would have had a 'Gunns Log' taken to them even by those Justices who support the 'collective right' view.

As to the NRA, those who have the time will find it illuminating to look up the Congressional hearings on NFA '34 in the Congressional Record. And the testemony by the then President of the NRA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
Wiley said:
As to the NRA, those who have the time will find it illuminating to look up the Congressional hearings on NFA '34 in the Congressional Record. And the testemony by the then President of the NRA.
Interesting read, here's a link if anyone is interested
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Brian618 said:
Wiley said:
As to the NRA, those who have the time will find it illuminating to look up the Congressional hearings on NFA '34 in the Congressional Record. And the testemony by the then President of the NRA.
Interesting read, here's a link if anyone is interested
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm
So basically the NRA hated guns then and they hate guns now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
"The NRA would lose its loudest fund-raising drum if this question is answered," says Carl Bogus, a leading scholar who favors the militia rights view of the amendment.
I'm surprised when folks say they think a favorable opinion would harm the NRA. Look how well the Pro-Abortion forces have done since roe v wade. Look at Rush Limbaugh when Republicans are in office. A favorable ruling makes the NRA even more important. Congress and the antis will be even more enraged and more determined to take away our rights. They'll make up all sorts of laws to try to limit the scope of any decision.

Fortunately for us in Georgia, the bill of rights doesn't apply, according to the Georgia Supreme Court.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Mike from Philly said:
Fortunately for us in Georgia, the bill of rights doesn't apply, according to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Thank goodness for that... :shakehead:

By the way, it is not just some old case either. Their have been 2 cases where the GaSC has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to Georgia laws. Once in 1911 and again in 2006.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top