Had a chance to finally study the Brief's. Here is my read on them.
http://www.saf.org/EmersonMainBrief.html Brief by Emerson's Council
http://www.saf.org/EmersonSAF.htm Amicus Brief by Second Amendment Foundation
SAF does an excellent job of setting the historical record straight. One of the main points of the prosecutions position on the second was that the term "To bear arms" was only used in a military context. SAF dispels this myth beyond a doubt with references to the dictionary of the time, laws written on hunting game where the term "to bear arms" is used and with letters from our founders referring to "to bear arms" in context's other than purely military terms. They also cover a lot of other ground. Well written. It is worth the read.
The Brief for the defense is disappointing to say the least. Emerson's Attorney in effect offers the court a deal.... if they do not want Emerson to pursue the 2nd issue to the Supreme Court, they can let him off using alternative legal theory. Thus the appeals court can avert having to address the issue. This is a stroke of genius by Emerson's Attorney as with the liberal judges who are anti-gun, they can keep their unconstitutional gun control laws (by ruling that the 2nd is a right held only by the states) and at the same time Emerson gets off through an alternative legal theory. Can't blame the Attorney for this, as that is what he is getting paid for. It is disappointing in that it will do nothing to get the issue before the Supreme Court.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
