When reading the Amicus Brief by the Form Generals it was stated that:
“Private handguns are Military handguns”.

If they meant that a private individual owning handguns promotes handgun training , I can see that.

Unfortunately from all the Military people I have talked to in the last few years I have heard that it is Forbidden to carry a personally owned firearm when in Combat.

Why the apparent contradiction?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm

The last four entries for Feb 11, and the deletion of a duplicate from the Feb 7 entries have brought it into agreement with the other sources.

I’ve heard all the arguments for gun control and I personally think there are all full of sh@#. The one rings in my mind to this day. It involved a environmetalist who stated all guns should be banned. So I told him in that case then the cops won’t need them either. The gentlemen I was discussing this with then stated, “The cops need their guns because there will still be illegal guns out there.” So you see by his own admission gun control does not work. He stated it and still won’t believe it won’t work.

There is a fine line on what is considered arms. In the time the Constitution was written, weapons of war, including cannons, warships, and other things, were personally owned. Is it time for this to be recognized? I don’t know. But we need to take this one step at a time.

Oh, before i forget I’ll add one of my personal favorites for the .50 cal ban. This weapon can be used to take down an airliner on take off. This one had me ROTFLMAO. Even if you managed to hit a target moving at 140 mile an hour from the very extended range you would have to shoot from, the single 671 grain round you would get off could not due enough of damage to make the airliner crash, even if it hit the engine. Most people can’t shoot 100 yards let alone from a couple of thousand. Too many variables come into play. Not to mention the fact that this weapon is not easily hidden due to the sheer size.

Hopefully the Justices will see all of this for what it is, and decide that the RKBA is an individual right.

Having been a Special Police Officer in D.C. including more than a few shifts spent in Public Housing and some “rough little cuts” here and there I can assure you they don’t.

As much as I love liberty and cherish gun ownership, I would hold hands with Sara Brady and throw all of my guns off the fourteenth street bridge if these laws did any good. (despite the fact that all of my guns together have killed fewer people than Senator Kennedy’s car)

20,000 gun laws on the books and they don’t work. Total bans haven’t helped in Australia, England, Jamaica and a slew of other places.

England is an Island for crying out loud and they can’t stop armed criminals with a total ban.
I hope the court uses some common sense along with a sense of duty and remembers their oaths of office on this one.

The National Rifle Association is still listed twice (with no mention of the unrelated National Shooting Sports Federation).

Briefs for the
American Civil Rights Union
Citizens Committee for the RKBA [Correcting Myths]
have been added.

Still no mention of
International Scholars

it appears that they report only 44 Amici brief for the Respondant where this site shows 47, as does the DCGunCase.com site.

As there are no rules for names, it is tricky to sort out, but to me it appears that:

The .gov Docket lists the NRA twice where one should probably be the NSSF.

And that these three briefs are left off the Docket (using your names):

American Civil Rights Union
Citizens Committee for the RKBA
International Scholars

Am I wrong? If not, is there a problem that they don’t show on the online Docket?

Picking up where you left off, there is a similar problem with the Dept. of Justice brief. D.C. raised no further issues of material fact in response to Heller’s summary judgment motion. Both D.C. and Heller – both parties – have conceded that there are no further factual issues in this case. All outstanding issues are issues of law. Why would the Supreme Court ask some lower court for the answer to a purely legal question?? They’re supposed to tell the lower courts what the law is.

Even if the Court thinks about this ancillary problem, the opinion will merely state, “We will assume for the purposes of this opinion that the statutes in question were consented to by Congress.” And then they will go on to the constitutional matter at issue.

My sincere apologies.