Thank you Jerry for making this a sticky.
To better understand the Supreme Court Case D.C. v Heller, watch this video featuring Alan Gura, the lead attorney for Heller, who gives an insider's understanding of Heller: Alan Gura Speaks at VCDL Conference
Alan Gura seems like a bright, knowledgeable, and awesome character.
The video is very educational and watching it is a great way to understand Heller, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Here are some other Heller resources (please feel free to add!).
Another great video of Gura; interview of Gura before the Supreme Court made their decision:
Alan Gura on Reason.tv
Articles from the CATO Institute.
Great Recourse: CATO's webpage featuring the case: CATO Gunban Page
An Essay by Robert Levy
David Kopel's Reaction Essay
Reaction Essay by Dennis Henigan
Who these men are:
Every brief filed from the begging of the Case to the end:
Briefs and Pleading from Gura & Possessky
An overview of the Case from Gura and Possessky's website:
PDF of Supreme Court's Decision
Alan Gura is involved in a suit against Chicago, due their handgun ban, and he has a website about it. This is the Case to incorporate the Second Amendment.
HELLER ROUND TWO!
PDF of Complaint
News article about Heller's new lawsuit
Here are some specific Glocktalk threads:
Chicago lays out legal strategy
DC refuses to register Heller's handgun
Reasonable Restrictions: Kiss Them Goodbye
Heller Commemorative Revolver
That darn DC ban is a bunch of bull
DC v. Heller: juxtaposition of Majority v. Minority opinions
Heller is a risky epidemiologic experiment
Short Statements After Arguments
Akhil Reed Amar:
PDF of Amar's Paper: Heller, HLR, and Holistic Legal Reasoning
Who is Akhil Reed Amar?
As I research the Case and the pending Cases, I'll add to this page. I'm eager for more information, so please add any resources that you may have. Thank you.
Heller (the man, not the case) is about the file another suit very soon. I'll try to keep you updated. Here is a thread from AR15.com, started by a person who apparently is a prime source.
Heller to file suit against DC
Furthermore, there is an update from ChicagoGunCase.
In the Chicago Case, the Appellant's and the Amici's briefs are in; I'll analyze them in a post below.
Here is another link to add. It is a short statement he made not long after the arguments.
Heller files ROUND TWO
Gun Ban Plaintiff Dick Heller Files New Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON — The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban has filed a new federal lawsuit against the city.
In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that the city's new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia's unusual ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semiautomatic handguns.
The suit also claims that the city's regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self defense in the home.
The Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban June 26. The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling.
There is a great deal of CASE LAW in the Supreme Court's decision. That means a lot to wade through! The decision was that each individual is allowed to possess. For some reason Washington DC just can not read and comprehend the law/decision.
Thanks for posting the video.
I understand Heller
It allows you have have a single shot .22 handgun in your home
I am tired of seeing compromisers represent us and our liberties.. this lawyer is one of them, handing away our military weapons right. The founders had cannons, grenades, mortars and more, all considered arms, all types being in private hands and all considered to be so essential that Lexington, Concord and the American Revolution began over this issue, when General Gage ordered troops to confiscate arms privately and publicly held at Concord, including cannons
This Heller decision flies directly in the face of Miller vs US. It was a disaster
I can understand your frustration, as I myself do not completely like the results from the decision. I would have liked a more direct ruling from the Supreme Court, as they tip-toed some issues. However, The Supreme Court usually, almost certainly, always works in such a fashion. Indeed, it is the prescribed, unwritten rule that they do so.
Apocalypse, the Heller decision allows nothing. Remember, laws do not allow; they merely forbid. As such, the decision addressed the unconstitutional use of governmental power (that government does not not have the power to ban pistols, or to require arms to be kept inoperable).
Lastly, Apocalypse, you seem to be relishing in a vast, illogical misconception: that reality is defined by the way things ought to be. Reality is what reality is. You and I both know what the Second Amendment is, what it protects, and why it was cannoned. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment is not reality; it is a written symbol of a liberty long since unwanted (or at least not respected). Our country has been steadily abandoning the right. Proof being the pudding. The Decision reached by the Court helped overturn common trends. It is that simple.
Let me preach this to you in another significant way. As I've repeatedly stated, I've taken nearly every Political Science and ConLaw class I could get my hands on to, and not one (NOT ONE) teacher nor textbook referred to the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. At the very least, Heller changed this.
The battle is far from finished. No, Heller was not perfect, nor would I call it a gold standard as far as the ruling is concerned. It left open many issues that can only be answered by future litigation. However, the decision accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish. And for that, we as gun owners ought to be thankful. The essence of the decision: individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms for private purposes, including self-defense.
Lastly, Apocalypse, your citing Miller as good law astonishes me. It leads me to believe you either have a grudge against the Heller decision, or that you are unfamiliar with Miller (or perhaps both). There was no standing in Miller, and it is quite unfathomable that the Supreme Court even made a ruling in that particular case, as far as I'm concerned. If you had simply read the dicta from Heller you'd understand why, as they mention the fallacy known as Miller.
Give Heller a read-through. It may bless you with a bit of optimism.
Every time I talk to someone in person about Heller, I ask them if they understand Miller. I haven't had anyone say they did.
Miller basically said the .gov could restrict a short barrel shotgun because it had no militia use, even though the military used shotguns for trench warfare in WW1. Now you would think because thompsons and BARs clearly have a militia use that they could not restrict those, but they were restricted by the same law that Miller upheld, because they simply were not mentioned by the .gov side, and there was no defendant/defense present.
Updated to include Heller, HRL, and Holistic Legal Reasoning
I downloaded that pdf to my computer a while ago, but I haven't got around to reading it.
It's pretty good. In fact, I really enjoyed it. He offers a defense of self-defense and firearm ownership that I've never even considered. I disagreed with him only on a few slight points. However, the ending seemed rather arbitrary, unnecessary, and random (he puts in a little plug for Obama). However, other than the last few pages, the paper is a worthwhile read.
Alan is speaking February 21 in Springfield IL at ISRA banquet. I plan to be there.
FWIW: In an ideal world, the ruling would have been stronger, incorporated 14th, etc.; but there is a whole bunch of anti-gun people right now bemoaning that they just lost by 1 vote. I'm thankful for the win (even as it is) and fearful what may come.
If they had, you would be a British subject
They had a precise understanding of the reality in which they existed; it was not wishful thinking that won them a revolution.
To paraphrase Ayn Rand: "To control nature, we must obey nature."
To grasp reality is not to give into epathy (to view reality as unworkable). To rework reality one must work within the laws of nature, which is, afterall, science as we know it. Political reality is not shaped by what you and I know what ought to be. We don't have to accept modern political realities, but we must know them to change them.
I highly recommend all of you read that document
They knew when words directed at their oppressors were useless and so do I.
Continue to spit into the typhoon, I do respect your endurance in this regard, but I will be taking another route
I see. Perhaps you grasp reality better than I, and, if so, I apologise for the harshness of my earlier words. For current events shape my optimism into something which deserves spite: illogical thought.
For I grasp firmly the manner in which our court system works, and therefore applaud the Heller decision for what it is, not for what I wish it to be. Then again, compromise never leads to more liberty, and I too have made the claim that our Republic is lost to democracy, making any legal victory moot. A slave is a slave regardless of a court decision. At times a man needs to sober and take his own advice: reality is what it is, not what we wish it to be.
We shall see...
The NRA case against Chicago and surrounding districts has been combined with Gura & Possessky's case.
G&P Appellant Brief, PDF
NRA's Appellant Brief, PDF
You can find the Amici Curiae Briefs here.
I have read Gura's brief, and it is very good. He does take a jab at the NRA's brief, and I'm not exactly sure why, but there is a difference in interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I'll read the NRA brief to get their side.
Anybody seen any further advancement of the idea argued in the Heller dissent (to which they gave enough space to be scary...!) about how the Bill of Rights does not contain a right of self-defense, implying that that means there is no such right?
Of course, the Bill of Rights was put together for the purpose of protecting some of the pre-existing rights that were a natural part of being human, "God-given" if you will, and not to create rights or be an exclusive list of all the rights people were to have -- BUT: if some folks can go on for decades insisting the 2d was not an individual right, and have so many people begin to believe it, I am concerned about how much headway could be made with this other disingenious bologny.
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.