WonL
The random thoughts of an architect-turned- lawyer from the deep south living in Washington, DC...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sentimental First Year
Today marks one year to the day that I began as an associate at my law firm. Time sure does fly. Most of you who know me (or know where I work) are aware, there is some looming uncertainty about the future. I refuse to allow today to be about that. Today is about the fact that I work with an amazing group of people doing things I truly love doing.My first year has broken all the stereotypes that people warned me of: the first year is always miserable, I will be doing nothing but reviewing documents, Partners treat first years like dirt, etc. Not a single one of those stands true at my firm. (Aside from one or two partner-blips.) I am well aware that not many first years can say that they are truly happy at their firm. I can. Whatever lies ahead, I consider my first year as a lawyer to have been a great one and I am thankful that I have been lucky enough to have the experiences I have had.
Labels: Life in General, The Law
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Ch-ch-changes
I'm not ignoring you. I just don't know what to say. I used to have a blog that people read. I used to have interesting things to say (at least I think so). I used to have an anonymity that I could hide behind allowing me to express myself openly through writing. I used to have bonds with my readers that kept me coming back to write and kept them coming back to read. I miss it but I don't know how to get it back.I have a lot going on in my life. At the same time, there is not much going on in my life at all.
I go to work every day. Well, "mostly" every day. Did I mention I love my job? I can't really talk much about what I do on a daily basis because of that whole attorney client privilege stuff. But really, I love my job.
I've also been undergoing some friendship renovations. I found that transitioning from a law school life of Thursday drunk-fests and dramatic law school proms to a life of work receptions and networking events has led to changes in my social networks. Of course, this is compounded by the fact that some of the changes come from distance or just plain growing apart. It happens, right? Yeah, it happens. Still, it doesn't mean it's an easy transition. I miss certain people. I miss the way it was. At the same time, I'm ready to move on.
I'm also making some changes to my general lifestyle. No, I'm not into chicks now. I'm just adopting a dog. He's a nine year old chihuahua named Killer. I have a bond with this dog that would take another bottle of wine and a free evening to explain. One day, my friends, one day. It's going to be a difficult transtion (to say the least) considering my new apartment is on the 11th floor penthouse and he's not potty trained. Details, details. He's coming live with me and I'm ecstatic.
Otherwise, I cannot think of what to write about that has been going on in my life. Um, I got stuck on a stalled metro for 40 minutes then fell while running up a down escalator last week. Got lots of bruises and really messed up my hand. Um, I got pulled over in the Pentagon parking lot by some schmuck that had too much time on his hands (30 minutes he took) and felt the need to issue me a written warning for making an illegal u-turn...in a damn parking lot. Um, my mom came in town with a gift in tow that she excitedly handed over to me not realizing I had actually given it to her for Christmas this year. Um, this writer's strike is really starting to piss me off.
So, bottle of wine complete...I really can't think of much else to say. I miss you guys and truly hope to get back to this soon.
Labels: Adulthood, Blogging, Friends, Life in General, The Law
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