Yesterday, the defendant(s) filed their response brief. In two weeks, we should have Enos' reply brief, at which point the briefing will be complete.
The fed.gov is relying upon United States v. Brailey,
408 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2005) - a pre Heller/McDonald
case to define the “core civil rights of voting, serving as a juror, or holding public office.”
After an analysis of pre-Heller
cases, the fed.gov says,
The statutory analysis is no way altered by the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the Second Amendment protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3105 (2010). Plaintiffs are thus mistaken in contending that their arguments for a statutory exception (Pl. Br. 22) find any support in Heller or McDonald.
They go on to espouse the Lautenberg and Congress' presumptive authority, via the Commerce Clause to negate the plaintiffs other claims (10A and 2A).
In short, the 2A is not only not a "core" civil right, it is not a civil right within the meaning of the statute at question.