Very good response. It is only missing more quotes from Virginians. : )

"And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. " Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol 2. Chapter 1. Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals, (1803).

Odin! Valhalla! Indeed. :)

We're in good hands.

We may not win, but we're in good hands.

What would be the unintended consequenses of the court ruling it a states right? A state could then regulate the type ( preferably by popular vote) of arms for the mitilia. This would take all authority, because it is a states right, from the federal government on regulating arms for the mitilia. What if the people voted that only the people could decide what to regulate? If only one state did this then the federal government could not regulate arms in any state, ( law must apply equally to all states).

I kept hearing the German engineer in the "V Dub" ads saying "oh, snap!".

The eloquency of these solid arguements is superb. We are in good hands.

While I don't have the legal background to evaluate the weight of the citations, the overall response is a masterpiece of eloquence and clarity.

I am superbly happy that these guys are on our side!

David and all, What happens next? Is this the point where the Supes decide if they take the appeal or are there more filings. I kind of get the idea that DC get to file one more brief from Gura's web site.

Dave,

Side issue arising from having gone back and read the DC Court of Appeals original opinion.

The opinion spends some time discussing "US vs Miller". From this and other readings, I understand Miller appealed his conviction of interstate transportation of an un-taxed short-barrelled shotgun, claiming that violated the 2nd Amendment. It appears the Supremes ignored the Government's collective right argument and focused on the secondary argument that a SB shotgun was not particularly suited to military/militia use and hence not protected by the 2A. Since Miller had run out of money and couldn't afford a lawyer to argue at the SCOTUS level, there was no one to argue that SB shotguns could be military weapons, and Miller lost. It seems I also read that the court left room for Miller to come back and argue (at a lower court?) that SB shotguns WERE militia weapons, but he died, and left that unresolved.

Hang on, one more data point and I'll get to the point... :)

This past summer, the NRA's American Rifleman had an article on military shotguns which noted that within the last year or so that DoD ordered several THOUSAND 14-inch Mossberg shotguns. This would seem to me to be a great argument that SB shotguns have a military use.

So, can I now skip the NFA paperwork and the $400 (or whatever) tax and just order up my SB shotgun?

:)

Miller was not convicted. The lower court tossed the charge on 2A grounds, and it was the Government who appealed to the SC. The SC reversed and remanded. By that time, Miller was either dead or disappeared, and the case was never tried.

For a good background on Miller

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

I was surprised that the petition wasn't longer and more detailed, particularly with respect to Arguments I (Second Amendment) and IV (Policy and Social Science Arguments). It seems to me that a much stronger and more comprehensive presentation was possible for both of these points. Any comments?

It's a Reply Petition and not an opening Brief. The rules of most courts set page limits on Petitions and briefs.

Right -- this is just the plaintiffs' response to the District's certiorari petition. The only issue actually before SCOTUS right now is whether or not the Court will grant certiorari, i.e., choose to hear the case in the first place.

If the Court does choose to take the case, then the two sides will file a new round of briefs that argue the merits of the case, i.e., the 2A issue. The District chose to jump ahead to the merits in its cert petition, and the plaintiffs' response to that brief notes that the plaintiffs will have plenty more to say on the nature of the 2A individual right if the Court grants cert.

I understand that Parker will be discussed on Glenn Beck tonight.

I still think the other side is way outclassed. It seemed much of DC's petition was a bald appeal to the liberal justices to take the case and nullify an enumerated right. All that junk about standing by and watching while citizens die might be an argument to repeal the 2nd, but it's sure not a justification to ignore it. (Not that I believe it's valid argument for repeal, you get my point).

That DC brief was a nice little preview of what we might see from DC if the court takes the case. It made me feel quite good ;) The reply made me feel even better!