Tuesday, February 12, 2008

DC v Heller Update, response amici is in

Thanks to Heller's attorneys Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and Clark Neily for updating us all on the SCOTUS case.

www.dcguncase.com is the official site for the Plaintiffs (now respondant) in the challenge to DC's gun ban. Some interesting developments here.

This is one of the few times Dick Cheney and Bush publically disagreed on an issue. Cheney supports Heller in this case. Bush's justice department wants things both ways on this issue by supporting "individual rights", but opposing strict scrutiny.

55 Senators support Heller. 250 Congresscritters support Heller. As expected, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow do not support freedom. Almost ALL of the senators supporting this are Republicans. Only Bob Casey, Ben Nelson, Russ Feingold, Blanche Lincoln, Tim Johnson, Ken Salazar, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb signed on for the democrats among the senators. One shocker on the GOP side for me was George Voinovich who is strongly anti-gun. The house was a little more bi-partisan, but still strongly Republican. Of the Michigan Delegation, Dave Camp, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Rogers, John Dingell, Bart Stupak, Candice Miller, Thad McCotter, Joe Knollenberg, Fred Upton, and Tim Walberg signed it. Vern Ehlers, John Conyers (who signed with the gun grabbers), Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dale Kildee, and Sander Levin did not sign it.

The states are more bipartisan with less of the "Washington Democrat" (different than many states' dems) poison influence that hangs around. 31 States support Heller, including Michigan thanks to Mike Cox.

Several advocacy groups and law professors supported Heller, most of them with some sort of libertarian or conservative leanings, but not exclusively the case.

Both sides have their briefs up, and it's listed here under case filings. I recommend reading all of them if you get a chance. They took the Solicitor General to task heavily in their brief in their push on strict scrutiny.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Here's what's most interesting. Both parties are arguing over whether the 2nd Amendment includes an individual right apart from militias.

But neither side (from what I can tell from a quick read-through of the briefs) pays attention to the fact that current precedent is such that only some of the Bill of Rights amendments apply to the states, and the 2nd amendment is one of the Amendments not brought in by the XIVth Amendment by the Court thus far.

Many states have enacted their own 2nd Amendment to cover, but the briefs don't mention anything like that in D.C. law. But at the same time, how does that apply to D.C.? It's not part of a state. It's supposedly municipal in nature, distinct from the federal government, yet it's termed a "federal district".

In order to overturn the D.C. law, the Court's going to have to find that D.C. is a federal entity and that there is an individual right apart from a militia. Or it's going to have to reach even further and proactively bring in either one or all the remaining Bill of Rights as applicable to the states.

There's more than one way they could do that. They could find that it's a fundamental right necessary to liberty or justice and bring it into XIVth amendment inclusion like they did with the 1st, 5th, 6th, etc. amendments. Or perhaps they could revisit the "privileges and immunities" clause that was nullified only 5 years after it was passed.

Personally, I vehemently oppose the fact that the Court hasn't included all of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. It blows my mind that not all of the amendments have been seen as "fundamental" rights.

I predict that the Court will uphold the D.C. law, but I really hope they take the opportunity to make those remaining Bill of Rights amendments applicable to the states.