Amicus briefs for D.C. available in guns case

Saturday, January 12th, 2008 10:59 am | Ben Winograd | Print This Post

Click the following links below to read the amicus briefs filed yesterday in support of the petitioner in the upcoming case District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). To read amicus briefs filed in support of the respondent, click here.



7 Comments »



  1. I wonder how the NAACP would feel if they understood that gun control is rooted in racism (that’s how it began).

    Comment by Dan Passaro — January 14, 2008 @ 9:50 am

  2. LDF acknowledges in its brief that “[s]ome early firearm regulations were facially discriminatory or were enacted with racially discriminatory intent,” but notes that “[n]either is the case with respect to the District’s handgun ban. Furthermore, as a general principle, we dispute the contention that regulations on firearms do not serve the interests of many African-American communities, as discussed infra, pp. 25-33. To the extent that any particular regulation was or were to be enacted with racially discriminatory intent, that regulation would of course be subject to challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See, infra, pp. 30-32.”

    See Amicus Br. at 18-19 n.19

    Comment by Dale Ho — January 14, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

  3. Well I stand coerced! I should have read the entire thing after work, LOL. The idea is still built on a foundation of sand though. As far as all the gun violence they purport to resist; what about the current gun laws, why haven’t they worked? Some people just don’t [won’t try to] get it I suppose.

    Comment by Dan Passaro — January 15, 2008 @ 10:10 am

  4. These groups state that the second admement is a collective right for the state to have a militia. Does this mean that the indiviual rights in the Bill of Rights is a collective right, where the rights of people can be regulated or opressed by the states.

    The 2nd admement does not give any state a collective right to form a milita. When the constitution was written, there was no formal military formed, either on the federal goverment or state level.

    At that time, the militia was able body men whom got there personal firearm, and ammo. These men would be led, not necessarly by a military leader, but a leader whom these men would follow.
    These men were not originally paid. They formed to protect there town, village, personal property, ect

    Comment by Dan Volungus — January 23, 2008 @ 10:02 am

  5. It is odd that the NAACP would assert that the D.C. gun ban is not “facially discriminatory” when the ban unquestionably affects more African-Americans than any other ethnicity.

    Comment by James N. Markels — January 24, 2008 @ 9:54 am

  6. I worked as a Special Police Officer in D.C. for Branch Security. Among my assignments were locations in National Capitol Public and Assisted Housing.

    If any person really sincerely thinks that D.C.s’ gun ban is for the best I strongly urge such persons to duplicate my experience.

    Then they should do as I did and become a registered Security Officer in Virginia and work in the high density areas immediately outside D.C.
    From personal experience the Hybla Valley area of Route One is a good choice.

    The truth will then set them free.

    The support of NAACP for the petitioner appears to be evidence that the NAACP is invested in victimhood and not equality.

    Comment by Douglas Wade Beatty — February 17, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

  7. Comment for Dan Passaro.

    Gun control is not “rooted in racism (that’s how it began)”as you put it. Gun control was tried on our founding fathers by a country and oppressive government that they were escaping which was long before slavery started in the US.
    But I do agree with what he says about the National Association of Always Complaining People.
    Racism will never die as long as these types of publicity hounds exist.

    Comment by Curtis West — February 18, 2008 @ 8:36 am

Leave a comment