Guess who filed an amicus brief favorable to the 2A being incorporated?

A

azredhawk44

Moderator
The guy sure equivocates on the issue though.

Talks up "rights" on one hand while giving a great big attaboy to CA supposed common-sense laws on the other hand... even had the audacity to mention the safe gun list that is eerily similar to the DC approved list.
 
C

CowTowner

New member
As California Ex-Patriot, I am amazed and pleasantly surprised at the same time.
Perhaps he slipped getting out of his hot tub and.............
 
D

Doc Intrepid

New member
"Gov. Moonbeam" has no intention of supporting widespread applicability of SA rights in California.

As someone else mentioned, establishing the fact that the State recognizes SA rights for U.S. citizens says nothing about further efforts by the State to curb citizen's rights to select any firearm they wish.

The State goes on to petition the courts to recognize the State's interest in selecting which firearms the State feels are appropriate (read "safe").

Once that right has been recognized in the courts, the State is then positioned to continue to refine the definition of "safe" using more and more onerous definitions [e.g. "magnetic rings" or "biometric sensors" so only the owner of the gun can fire the gun, taggants in propellents so that only the owner of the gun can (legally) be able to fire the weapon (...if taggants are found at the scene of a crime, guess what happens to the owner's gun rights?); State-supervised sale of ammunition in the same way that State liquor laws are currently enforced, etc.] The State of California will indeed ensure that your SA rights are observed - but only within what the State deems to be "safe"...

Anyone who might for a second feel that Jerry and the State of California have your best interests at heart should take a minute and reflect on what they may have in mind for five to ten years after this sort of legislation is granted by the courts and then passed.

When it comes to California and gun laws, celebration is premature...
 
I

ilbob

New member
To me the tone of the thing is "You are going to incorporate, so go ahead and get it over with. Then we can get to figuring out how much of our 2A infringing laws we can salvage".

I don't think he is "on our side", but it does not hurt us that he is asking that the 2A be incorporated. That is what we want after all.
 
A

azredhawk44

Moderator
Frankly, I think the anti-gunners are adopting the same strategy that the NRA did in the 80's and 90's.

They see the tide is against them so they are moderately capitulating in an effort to try and mitigate some of the damage they see coming down the road to their paradigm.

The problem with this... is that tactic will work just fine for them, but not for us. Every stinking time case law is established with regards to 2A issues, it either creates constraints on our rights or it is so narrowly applied that it cannot be applicable to another situation.

He's hoping that his Amicus is somehow taken into account in the dicta of the SCOTUS ruling, so that even when his side loses ground in the case law, they still have SCOTUS dicta to use in the future for other "pressing needs of the state."
 
L

legaleagle_45

New member
The Cato Institute also filed an amicus brief, which I have attached.
 

Attachments

  • IJ-Cato_Amicus_for_Cert[1].pdf
    125 KB · Views: 36
J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
that old out dated 2A? We don't need that in our modern CIVILIZED society. Why we have police officers and a civilian military to protect us. It isn't like some raiding party of savages is going to knock down your door or something. Lets just rewrite the whole thing.
How do you like this "A citizens right to install and upkeep an ADT alarm system and to pay Federal income taxes which will provide for a standing army that will in turn provide for the common defense." An optional additional statement "Localities may charge $1000 for each response resulting from the activation of said alarm system."

They are just regrouping and picking a new angle to attack from. The last year has seen some pretty big victories for our side, and I think they are shocked and just trying to get out of the way of the momentum.
 
R

rampage841512

New member
I've been reading the brief filed by the 32 states. I like the reasoning, and I hope it has an impact. I'm going to have to read the Cato Institute brief next.
 
R

rampage841512

New member
Just finished reading the Cato Institute brief, and I have to admit I like what they are saying. It is correct that that the Court is presented with a very good opportunity to revisit and correct mistakes made in regards to the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

If the Court chooses to incorporate, it has two routes by which to do it. One is easy, via the Due Process Clause. The other isn't so easy. Incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while in my opinion is the most correct course of action, may very well be a can of worms the justices will decline to open.
 
L

legaleagle_45

New member
If the Court chooses to incorporate, it has two routes by which to do it. One is easy, via the Due Process Clause. The other isn't so easy. Incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while in my opinion is the most correct course of action, may very well be a can of worms the justices will decline to open.
Click to expand...

Incorporation is tricky. Under standard due process selective incorporation, it is a slam dunk. The problem is some of the justices are not enamoured with selective incorporation... and those justices were crucial in the 5-4 Heller vote (Scalia, to name one). However, these justices might be inclined to adopt a P&I argument. I would not be the least surprised to see the second incorporated via a plurality opinion using due process and a concurrance using P&I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top