As always, Alan Gura's writing style is an easy read and settles lightly on the mind. Since the Appellant/Defendant has used most of the same arguments as they did at district court, Mr. Gura uses almost all of the allowable 14K words to rebut not only the State, but some of the State's amici
briefs. He doesn't mince words here.
Of the many things he does say, I have to bring one quote to everyone's attention!
In showing that the right is not a right bound to the front stoop, by quoting Dred Scott
Alan Gura goes on to say:
The Court later observed that “during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and ‘werewolves’ could [not] require the American Judiciary to assure them . . . [the] right to bear arms as in the Second [Amendment] . . .” Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950). The reference was not limited to home self-defense.
pp 22 (pp 43 of the pdf).
The above brought several chuckles to my lips and my wife nearly fell off her chair, laughing so hard!
In dealing with the amici,
the following is typical of his writing style:
Second Amendment author James Madison understood that the “bearing” of arms extended beyond the home. In 1785, Madison introduced in Virginia’s legislature a hunting bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson. Regarding “whoever shall offend against this act,” it stated:
[I]f, within twelve months after the date of the recognizance he shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty, it shall be deemed a breach of the recognizance, and be good cause to bind him a new, and every such bearing of a gun shall be a breach of the new recognizance. . . .A Bill for Preservation of Deer (1785), in 2 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 443-44 (J. Boyd ed., 1950) (emphases added).9
9Defendants’ amici Historians, at 6, omit the words “recognizance” and “whoever shall offend” from the bill in falsely stating it applied to “any person,” and evinced Jefferson’s alleged “view that firearms rights did not extend beyond one’s property.”
pp 31 (pp 52 of the pdf).
Here, Alan Gura is directly telling the court that the amici
Historians have lied to the court. In doing this, it calls into question the validity of any other thing that this amici
Next Monday, we will have some amici
briefs for the Appelles/Plaintiffs. I noted the following on pp 49-50 (pp 70-71 of the pdf):
Unsurprisingly, Defendants and their amici’s historical vision plainly conflicts with Heller, McDonald, and the sources described therein. It will not be accepted by the Supreme Court. An amicus brief by academics whose Second Amendment scholarship the Supreme Court endorsed will address Defendants’ amici in greater detail.
That might suggest only a single amicus. However, on pp 63 (pp 84 of the pdf), we find this:
Plaintiffs’ amici will fully present the criminological evidence confirming the People’s wisdom in ratifying the Second Amendment.
Regardless, I'll stop my quoting here. You may find other, equally good quotes of your own, should you take the time to actually read this brief. It's not only an easy read, it is an easily understandable read.