View Single Post
Old January 10, 2011, 11:03 PM   #41
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,546
For those following the case, Bateman v. Perdue, an exciting (to me, at least) brief was filed today.

Today, 01-10-2011, Alan Gura has filed his Opposition to the States Motion for Summary Judgment. Go to the docket and scroll down to item #73 to read it.

As you may remember, the 4th Circuit very recently came out with their opinion in U.S. v Chester, in which they sent back to the district court with instructions to look at 922(9) with intermediate scrutiny and demanded the government to justify the Lautenberg Act. Albeit dicta, the Circuit strongly implied that laws that conflict with the RKBA, as regards law-abiding people, the standard would be strict scrutiny. Their opinion is included as an exhibit, here.

With that background in mind, this pleading is priceless! Here are some of the pearls, as I read them...

Whatever else the Defendants might do to regulate the right to carry firearms, they cannot ban the carrying of firearms by law abiding people for the purpose of self-defense when social order has broken down—the absolute core of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.
That was to the State.

To groups like the Brady Center, who believe that even the possession of guns inside the home may be banned, every armed individual is an incipient criminal or at least too unaccountably irresponsible to use firearms. But the Constitution requires the government to make a distinction between law-abiding individuals, who may have guns, and criminals, who may not. And that distinction must be honored wherever the right of self-defense is implicated, even, and indeed especially, during times of public emergency.
Nail? Meet Coffin!

Brady’s proposition of a “reasonable regulation” test is based on the manner in which state courts have allegedly applied analogous state right to arms provisions. ... But having federal courts defer to state authorities on the question of how to best secure a federal constitutional right contradicts the very logic of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified precisely because state courts were not upholding basic civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Coffin? Meet another nail!
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03830 seconds with 7 queries