The brief is just from the city asking the court to overturn the lower courts ruling.
Just a little bit of there summary, one of the arguments is that the 2nd only applies to the Militia.
1. The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes. In-stead, it protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.
The first clause—“[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—speaks only of militias, with not a hint about private uses of fire-arms. A well-regulated militia is the antithesis of an unconnected group of individuals, each choosing unilaterally whether to own a firearm, what kind to own, and for what purposes.
The second clause—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—equally ad-dresses the possession and use of weapons in connection with militia service. In 1791, “Arms” and “bear Arms” were military terms describing the use of weapons in the common defense, and the word “keep” was used in connection with militiamen’s possession of the arms necessary for militia service.
Taken together, the two clauses permit only a militia related reading. To conclude that the Framers in-tended to protect private uses of weapons, the majority below read the entire first clause to be extraneous and the second to be in tension with the natural, military meaning of “bear Arms.” If that had been the Framers’ intent, they would have omitted the first clause and used non-military language in the second.
If the SOCTUS rules in our favor then it would remove this as an electiion issue there by allowing domestic issue to be the deciding issue on which candidate to vote for as lest for the gun people any way.
A militia has traiditionally been formed by proivate citizens, bringing their own weapons and equipment. You can't do that if private citizens don't have weapons.
With all due respect, without a militia you wouldn't have won independance, because at the start you didn't have an army. the democrats seem to forget that. Basically the second ammendment allowed for armies to be raised from the citizens as required.
Neither side ever wished this case to go to the supreme court becasue of the risks and implications of any decision the court makes. The outcome could be very significant and damagind to either side.
I agree that there is a very significant risk with taking these cases to SOCTUS, the NRA even tried to stop this case. But with what little reading of there brief that I have been able to do we stand a very good chance to win this one.
They are arguing three points, that only militia's should have guns, that DC does not come under the Constitution because they are a special enclave, and the third being the ban is for the good of the people even though it does violate the peoples right to own firearms.
The first point is there strongest; the second won't stand up under examination and the third I could not believe that they even would make such an argument.
As you already made the case the first point is not likely to win over the Justices. The second is pretty ridicules to say that because people don't live in a state that the Constitution does not apply. There third point basically say's that the law should stand for the good of the people, but they have no real data to show that this is the case.
The real threat here is that if the SOCTUS makes a ruling against gun owners it then becomes case law and will be used against us at every turn as it basically forms a new law, or at least an official interpretation of the exsisting law. Once case law is established it would be all but impossible to overturn.
Again while there is always the risk that SCOTUS makes a bad ruling such as Miller, the poorly worded brief and the fact that they would have to have to reexamine all the amendments if they determine that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, leaves me hopeful.
I have very high hopes that we will get a favorable ruling it may not be a straight forward ruling that would put to rest for once an all that gun control is unconstitutional.
SCOTUS Session Ends Today. Brace for 2nd Amendment landmark decision
Today the Supreme Court should announce their decision on a critical RKBA case. The 2007-2008 Supreme Court session ends today (June 23rd) so in all likelihood, before the sun sets, we will be celebrating or loading up on ammo and guns as we brace for some of the harshest gun bans we've ever seen
I hope to goodness you don't get any bans cause if you guys get bans that means they probably will follow suit up here too and that I certainly don't want to see as things are already too bad as it is when it comes to bans on certain guns.
10:35 Jason Harrow - Tomorrow, the Court will issue its remaining three decisions: Heller (DC Guns), Davis v. FEC (campaign finance), and American Electric Power (energy contracts).
10:37 Jason Harrow - As Tom previously mentioned, it is quite likely that Justice Scalia is writing the majority opinion in the Guns case and that Justice Alito is writing the opinion in the election case, Davis v. FEC. The author of American Electric Power is harder to predict.
10:39 Jason Harrow - Clarification: while it appears that Justice Scalia has the principle opinion in the Guns case, it is not necessarily a majority opinion. It could be a plurality opinion.
heller descision will be out thursday 26 Jun at 10am EST
check this out for live updates and direct links to the written descisions. these guys have it before the news does and release it before anyone else other than the supremes (who only release it initally to the press and a selected few)