Parker/Heller Petition

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by kkennett, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113

  3. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,472
    16
    38
    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.
     
  4. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    That's a 48 page .pdf
     
  5. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    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.
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    "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 . . ."
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    They cite Saul Cornell for the "historical understanding" of the Second Amendment. :puke:

    At least they did not cite Michael Bellesilles. :roll:
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    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.


    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.
     
  10. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    Isn't it the police's weapon of choice too?
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    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?
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    Compare DC's position:
    Against Tenche Coxe's position:

    Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    "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
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    "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."
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    "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))."
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    In footnote 16, they basically voice support for a nationwide handgun ban.
     
  19. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    I would love to know how many of those were killed by their own handgun?
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    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.