Respondent's Brief filed in District of Columbia v. Heller

[slackmaster]

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-0290bs.pdf

Link to press release from Heller's attorneys: http://dcguncase.com/blog/2008/02/04/historic-supreme-court-brief-filed-in-second-amendment-challenge-to-dc-gun-ban/

[bossy22]

1. interesting

i was on the website and i noticed there are more briefs in the favor of the petioners (the city) then for the plaintiffs :(...though i dont know when the plaintiff briefs are due so they may be comming soon

[Boomer 50]

2. The respondants have about two weeks for amicus filings

If memory serves, they have two weeks to have their amicus briefs filed. I know that there are some pretty powerful people/groups that are going to file on Heller's behalf. We just need to wait a bit.

[jody]

3. Thanks for posting. Interesting conclusion on pages 1 & 2.

No state, and only one other major city (Chicago), bans handguns outright. The other two provisions appear unique to Washington, D.C.

In reviewing the handgun ban, the D.C. Circuit correctly applied this Court’s test for determining which “arms” are constitutionally protected. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The court found that handguns pass the Miller test, as they are arms of the type in common use by individuals, the possession of which can contribute to the common defense. PA53a.

The D.C. Circuit further held, correctly, that as home possession of handguns is constitutionally protected, Petitioners may not prohibit their movement within the home. The court struck down the license provision for carrying handguns as applied to home possession. PA54a-55a.

Finally, the D.C. Circuit correctly found that the literal text of section 7-2507.02 “amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense,” PA55a, and is thus unconstitutional.

[SteveM]

4. My goodness, Respondents cite Planned Parenthood, Hamdi,

and current conditions (the "war on terror") to say "Constitutional review of gun laws thus finds both individual and governmental interests at their zenith." P. 47. An unusual recognition of the tensions caused by BushCo's authoritarian regime and its "interests," set against individual interests.

Hope no one on the Court is offended.