Malum Prohibitum said: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."
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.Malum Prohibitum said:
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.Vir Quisque Vir said: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.
kkennett said: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.
Then the first 3 sentences are just jabs to the face. :shattered:Citizens Under Criminal Attack Are Not Required to Stand By and Die Awaiting Police Protection.
Was Gura ever a boxer? :boxing:Petitioners correctly note that the Second Amendment â€œdoes not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.â€ Pet. at 30 (emphasis added). Yet the city consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime. For example, the city has successfully defended its right to â€œstand by while its citizensâ€ are raped, kidnapped from their homes, and further abused.