Jon, don't do this. The more briefs the LESS attention the Court will give them. It's not a race for "15 seconds of fame." Heller's lead attorney is coordinating the 8 or 10 amicus briefs that are needed. Don't shove another one up his ... . Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/07/08 6:39 PM >>> Guy Smith wrote: >> On Nov 21, 2007, at 6:20 AM, Jon Roland wrote: >> >> >>> We are contemplating filing an amicus curiae brief of our own in DC >>> v. Heller, but might join with others. We will not duplicate the >>> arguments made by others, but will address the issue of what kind >>> of regulation of firearms, if any, is constitutional. Our position >>> will be, only regulation that enhances the effectiveness of >>> militia. That could include regulation of the safety of firearms, >>> to exclude those that might be dangerous to their users or to >>> unintended targets, but nothing more restrictive. >>> >> This would seem to be a particularly dangerous argument to offer, >> inasmuch as the regulations that paralyzed the gun market roughly ten >> years ago in Massachusetts were couched behind the false flag of >> "consumer safety." For example, they demanded that guns have >> completely unreasonable trigger pulls so prevent six-year-olds from >> operating them, and banned the sale of any out-of-production >> collectible for which you were unwilling or financially unable to >> provide six identical units to the state for destructive testing. >> > > I have mixed feelings about this brief. > > We know the subject of "reasonable regulation" (which always sounds like an > oxymoron to me) will be raised. Proactively addressing the question seems > wise in as much as assuring an effective militia would minimize the scope of > manufacture-side regulation. > > But the case _appears_ to be hinging cleanly on the individual rights > theory, what with the court's rephrasing of the questions. On the surface, > the court seems to be skirting the militia question, asking "... Second > Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any > state-regulated militia..." > > My fear would be that amplifying the militia/regulatory issue invites judges > to stray from the narrow question. > We are now further along and in a better position to decide whether we might want to introduce either or both of the two points I argue at http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2007/12/arguments-needed-in-dc-v-heller.html . I am concerned that even if we win on the narrow issue, there may be cites or dicta that reaffirm previous SC decisions that have sustained existing gun control regulations as "reasonable", or that define "militia" as a plural noun, in the sense that to be "militia" there has to be more than one person involved. The above mentioned danger might exist if the arguments were made in the main briefs, but if made carefully in an amicus brief, they might at least discourage cites or dicta that could be damaging to our cause in a future case. Even better would be if we could get a mention of the Latin meaning of "militia", or mention of the analogy to congressional election regulations (that would obviously be unconstitutional if they impaired the convenience, accuracy, or fairness of elections). That would lay the foundation for amplifying the arguments in later cases, and there will be later cases. -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
