Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Vir Quisque Vir, Oct 4, 2007.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... sponse.pdf
excellent, something to read as I wait for the server to finish loading price files.
New question presented:
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.
It cites Nunn v. State!
Best quote: "In questioning whether a law is constitutional, it is no answer to respond that the lawâ€™s rationale is simply that public safety is a proper interest of government. That sort of argument does not resolve constitutional questions, it ignores them."
learned a few new words too.
Thats simple enough for a fifth grader to understand. Wow that guy can write.
Yeah, I am jealous. It is not just one brief. Everything the guy touches . . .
You are not kidding! It builds confidence in the case when you read stuff like that.
I am with you. That brief is strong. What a pleasure to read someone who can distill such a thing down to crisp clear logic and arguments. Whatever way this case may come out, it has been done well. The merits briefs will be a fascinating read for sure.
The flood of interesting commentary, even from some of these people, should be easy to find today.
I can't wait for the media spin when the case gets cert. There are going to be stories about the streets running with blood.
Just an observation. I sure am glad Gura is taking care of this case. His writing is clear, concise and hits the nail on the head. He made D.C. look? like fools, the D.C. case is narrow and does not fit the results of the appeals court at all. Looks like a 10th grader was writing for D.C. Sure not the case with Gura. Glad he is on the right side. He is basically defining what the Supreme Court will see, not the nonsense posed by D.C. I am sure he is smart enough to NOT let another organization, for example, mess it up this time, no names of course.
Gura has even publicly stated that this case is not through Cato or any other organization for just that reason. He wants to call all the shots. He's calling them well, in my opinion.
The response is such a great read. Respondents plainly argue that DC's public policy points are irrelevant to rights. However, they say, DC is also completely wrong. In responding to the peititions line about "whatever right the 2A protects, DC doesn't have to sit by while it's citizens die," here are a couple of devastating paragraphs:
If the city does not wish to â€œstand by while its
citizens die,â€ it has many opportunities to act without
infringing upon the Bill of Rights. â€œntil issues like
onerous requirements for officers to appear in court,
outmoded technology, counterproductive work rules
and lax attitudes are fixed, residents wonâ€™t see dramatic
change.â€ Shuffling the Force, WASHINGTON
POST, Sept. 29, 2007, at A18.
In the meantime, people need not stand by and
die while waiting for Petitioners to provide a safe city
in which to live. The Second Amendment guarantees
to citizens something that Petitioners have expressly
and consistently disclaimed any legal obligation to
provide: an effective means of preserving their lives.
Ouch! That's got to sting a little.
All of argument V stung... repeatedly. The title of it starts it off
Then the first 3 sentences are just jabs to the face.
Was Gura ever a boxer?
"I am sure he [Gura] is smart enough to NOT let another organization, for example, mess it up this time, no names of course."
The unnamed organization I was referring to was denounced by the Parker v. D.C. attorneys. It was claimed by one attorney that this organization basically sabotaged or attempted to sabotage the case from the very beginning. I would suspect this is the reason that organization might (WILL) take a back seat to Gura on this one. I believe D.C. has until the end of next week at most to respond to adding back the other 5 plaintiffs in the original Parker v. D.C. case. SCOTUS has issued several cases indicating that a person does not have to go ahead and get arrested to have standing, just that their be a clear consequence of not obeying the law as written. That would likely qualify Parker, et al. Therefore, I would expect these 5 would have standing in D.C. v. Heller. One more great call by Gura.
The District has until Oct. 12 to respond to the cross-petition to add back the other plaintiffs. They also get to file a reply brief on the first petition. The case will be set for a cert decision in early November. The District circuit has an odd precedent on pre-enforcement challenges (Seegars) that is likely to be overturned as well. The Supremes may even GVR (grant, vacate, remand) the cross-petition forthwith to square DC with other jurisdictions.
While looking for something else I came across this from the Emory Law Journal: http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html .
Interesting read as we wait for SCOTUS' decision.