WonL
The random thoughts of an architect-turned- lawyer from the deep south living in Washington, DC...
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Amicus blog for DC gun case*
(Alternate title - My Two Cents: Added to the Already Overflowing Piggy Bank)Dear Supreme Court of the United States,
As I am sure you are well aware, especially after your private Friday meeting last week, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit struck down D.C.'s handgun ban in Heller (or Parker depending on where you find the case) v. District of Columbia. I have spent weeks now reading and analyzing the situation surrounding this case that has been put before you in a petition for certiorari. I believe I have some insight that may be of value to you.
I have rifled through endless pages that discuss the different views interpreting the Second Amendment (individual rights, collective rights, sophisticated collective/limited individual rights). I have read multiple 36 to 50+ page cases with in-depth Second Amendment analyses (see Parker, Silviera, Emerson) laying out arguments on both sides. I have sought out and documented other Supreme Court precedent that may help shed light on the subject. (I even read Miller 7 times.) I have read the historical text of constitutional debates, conventions and the First and Second congress (well, the House debates since the Senate debates were conducted in secret). I have referred to multiple dictionaries for definitions of words such as "bear", "keep", "arms", "regulated" etc. I have read the work of countless scholars on both sides of the debate (see Tribe, Volokh and Dorf).
But Sirs and Madam, I feel as if today I may have found the source that will really help to clear things up for you. Might I suggest you put aside all other case-law, historical text, textual analyses and even scholarly work. Dearest Justices, you should be reading blog comments to shed light on this alleged 62 years of confusion. For example, you can find multiple helpful views and comments right on the SCOTUS Blog:
- Mr. Spencer writes "Remember, had the Second had been written to say: “A well-fed militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to store and eat food shall not be infringed,” in no way could that be interpreted to mean that only the National Guard has the right to eat."
- Mr. Crim vigorously defends Mr. Heller's position by ending with "Osama bin Ladin is no more than a pirate."
- Mr. Donath describes a well-regulated militia as ranging from "the nation needing more troops than a standing army has...to a lone woman stopping a rapist in the parking lot."
- I would advise you pay special attention to Mr. Donath's foreshadowing "Should, at the Supreme Court level, anything less than a full “individual” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment be rendered, in light of my above comments, what do you seriously think the reaction of “the people” - who are already armed - will be? Think carefully before answering." and of course, his disclaimer: (I advocate nothing - but hear much.)
- Mr. Shaw (whose motto is "an armed community is a polite and respectful community") thinks "the Supreme Court has heretofore contorted the language and intentions of the framers to abandon a result that certain fragments of the Court and special interest found unappealing…" Yeah, what he said!
- Mr. Rickers finally clears up the confusion surrounding Miller..."Essentially, the defendant Miller, said, “Hey, the NFA34 is unconstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment.” The judge said, “Yeah, your right. Nevermind.”
Quite frankly, I believe I am most drawn to the openness and honesty found in Mr. Anderson's comment:
- "Folks, please forgive an old country boy from Mississippi for butting in. I will not pretend to be as well educated as the majority of you here, nor as verbose as many. I will say this however: Rakur, you scare hell out of me. I can think of a number of nations in the past whose governments infringed on individual’s rights to keep and bear arms. Their militias then proceeded -under the government’s direction- to annihilate large portions of its defenseless population. Our sons and daughters have died and are still dying to protect and free such people. I pray your mindset does not gain in popularity. Shooting and killing one’s own son or daughter who is an unfortunate member of my nation’s “militia” wouldn’t set very well with me. I fear I would hold men such as yourself directly responsible. Good day and Godspeed, gentlemen." (emphasis added).
I do not intend to give the impression I am advocating for one view or another. The above blogger comments, while seeming to slant in the direction of an individual rights interpretation, are a mere sampling of those that were readily available to me this morning prior to departing for work. Other blogs out there contain many more well thought-through arguments from commenters.
I request that you take these views into account when determining not only whether to grant certiorari but also when analyzing the depth of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Yours Truly,
Law-Rah, Esq.
Labels: The Law