« OBL Admits He Did It (and thinks ANSWER is ineffective!) |
Hoffmang.com
| Actual Income Tax Data »
October 05, 2007
Alan Gura Responds to DC's Cert Petition
Gura, Levy, and team responded to DC's petition for certiorari this week. Their blog post is here and the actual filing is available here.
Some of my favorite sections:
A century earlier, the infamous Dred Scott case reasoned that no Southern state would have adopted a constitution obligating it to respect privileges and immunities of citizenship held by African-Americans, including "the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857).
While Scott's odious holding is an aberration, its recognition of the fact that citizens enjoy a personal right to keep and bear arms certainly was not.
And in response to DC's argument that it need not stand by while its citizens die:
Petitioners correctly note that the Second Amendment "does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die." Pet. at 30 (emphasis added). Yet the city consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime. For example, the city has successfully defended its right to "stand by while its citizens" are raped, kidnapped from their homes, and further abused. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) (en banc). The city has likewise successfully defended its right to "stand by" in the face of the worst urban rioting in our nation's history. Westminster Investing Co. v. G.C. Murphy Co., 434 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
The city has even defended its right to "stand by while its citizens die" when the perpetrator is a police officer. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. 1983) (en banc). Indeed, the city has asserted its right to "stand by while its citizens die" in the course of volunteering their assistance to the police. Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Posted by hoffmang | October 05, 2007 07:31 PM
|
