Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 87 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
How long is it? (I assume pretty lengthy)
Can an entire copy be posted or does a copy exist elsewhere (work blocks the scotus blog :x and my google fu is apparently off today as I couldn't find anything elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I've now read it. Under Goldstein's tutelage, the petitioners have taken a markedly different tack with the Sup Ct than they did with the CoA. I am quite sure that the Supremes have been following this case closely and will recognize the departure. This is only the petition and not the brief. I'm sure the respondent will file an reply to the petition, and, when it is granted (which I'm sure it will be), there will be dozens of amicus briefs for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
well this is gonna be some interesting reading tonight.

I noticed a mention of Federalist 43...I might be able to get a conversation going in my USC History class today.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
"The decision of the court below is a marked departure from the reasoned consensus of other courts, and that departure was the basis for overruling the District’s sensible legislative judgment on how best to protect children . . ."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
They cite Saul Cornell for the "historical understanding" of the Second Amendment. :puke:

At least they did not cite Michael Bellesilles. :roll:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Argh! They point to the Pennsylvania dissenters, who wanted language for the Second Amendment with private uses in it, and concluded that because they failed, the Second Amendment is purely about military matters. See pages 15-16 and note 11.

But see how the DC Court of Appeals already addressed this issue.

[T]here is the following statement in the report issued by the dissenting delegates at the Pennsylvania ratification convention: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.... THE ADDRESS AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY OF THE CONVENTION OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, reprinted in 3 THE COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST 145, 151 (Herbert J. Storing ed., 1981). These dissenting Antifederalists, writing in December 1787, were clearly using "bear arms" to include uses of weaponry outside the militia setting-e.g., one may "bear arms...for the purpose of killing game." To be sure, collective right theorists have correctly observed that the Pennsylvania dissenters were not speaking for anyone but themselves-that is, they lost in their attempt to defeat ratification of the Constitution, and lacked the clout to have their suggested amendments sent to the First Congress, unlike the Antifederalist delegates in other state conventions. See Jack N. Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism, 76 CHI.-KENT L.REV. 103, 134-35 (2000). But that the dissenting delegates were political losers does not undercut their status as compentent users of late-eighteenth-century English.
Here is why this is important. The argument proffered by DC is that "bear arms" must mean only bearing them in a military context. They dispute that the Pennsylvania minority contributesd anything to the argument because their proposal was not adopted, but the Pa. minority used the term "bear arms" in the context of other purposes than military ones. The DC Court of Appeals concludes that they must have known what the words meant, and, therefore, the use of the words "bear arms" has more meanings than simply the military context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
The Council also found that the handgun is a criminal’s
weapon of choice
. It cited national statistics showing that
“handguns are used in roughly 54% of all murders, 60% of
robberies, 26% of assaults.â€
Isn't it the police's weapon of choice too?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Several states, like Tennessee, went further, banning entirely the sale of any concealable weapon, including all pistols “except such as are used in the army and navy of the United States, and known as the navy pistol.â€
True enough, and guess what color were the people in Tennessee who were not discharged from military service with such weapons and were unlikely to afford them new?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Compare DC's position:
Contrary to the view of the court below, the Amendment under the proper interpretation is not a “dead letter.†It remains, as the Framers intended, a bulwark for state militias against undue federal interference.
Against Tenche Coxe's position:

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Substantial evidence of the special risks posed by handguns makes banning them reasonable, even if there is a Second Amendment right to own guns. Significantly, every one of the demonstrable harms caused by handguns exists even when the gun owner is generally law-abiding and responsible.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Fourth, handguns are easy to bring to schools, where their concealability and capacity to fire multiple rounds in quick succession make them especially dangerous. In urban areas, as many as 25% of junior high school boys carry or have carried a gun. Jack M. Bergstein et al., Guns in Young Hands: A Survey of Urban Teenagers’ Attitudes and Behaviors Related to Handgun Violence, 41 J. Trauma 794 (1996). In the recent Virginia Tech shooting, a single student with two handguns discharged over 170 rounds in nine minutes, killing 32 people and wounding 25 more.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
"The District’s decision to address these handgunspecific problems by banning the private possession of handguns as more than reasonable, because handgun bans work."

p. 27

"A study of the District’s handgun ban concluded that it coincided with an abrupt decline in firearm-caused homicides in the District but no comparable decline elsewhere in the metropolitan area."

p. 28
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
"Respondent Heller wants to keep a handgun for selfdefense. Complaint at 3. The straightforward answer is that he may lawfully possess a rifle or shotgun to protect himself. Although the handgun ban limits the choice of gun owners, “the barriers thereby created do not significantly interfere with th[e] right [to bear arms].†Robertson, 874 P.2d at 333. Indeed, Heller himself owns long guns but chooses to keep them outside the District. Complaint at 3. At least some in the gun community recognize that the portability and concealability of handguns suit them for carrying outside the home, but that other weapons are better suited to self-defense in the home."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
"Handguns, by contrast, are uniquely dangerous, and having a gun in the home actually makes it far more likely that its inhabitants will die in a homicide or suicide. Kellermann, supra; Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, 327 New Eng. J. Med. 467 (1992). Criminal gun use is far more common than successful uses of guns in self-defense. Hemenway, Private Guns, supra, at 58-59, 64-
78. The thesis that armed victims deter crime by raising the cost to the rationally calculating criminal (see, e.g., John R. Lott & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to- Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. Legal Stud. 1 (1997)) has been debunked (see, e.g., Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime†Hypothesis, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1193 (2003); see also Dan A. Black & Daniel S. Nagin, Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?, 27 J. Legal Stud. 209 (1998))."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
Handguns pose particular dangers to police officers performing
their duties, including executing warrants and pursuing
felons. Of the 55 police officers feloniously killed in
2005, 42 were killed by handguns. See Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Reportâ€"Law Enforcement Officers
Killed and Assaulted at Table 28 (2005),
I would love to know how many of those were killed by their own handgun?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
And the concluding sentence, drum roll please,

Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.
 
1 - 20 of 87 Posts
Top