"Gun Control On Trial"

[Chris Grieb]

This is a new book from Cato Institute.

This is a full account of DC versus Heller otherwise known as the DC gun case. It is only 126 pages but is a full account of the case.

I would suggest to any NRA members out there that you might want to think about your support for that organization. According to the book almost until the end of the case NRA put roadblocks against the case. NRA was scared to have a court case come down. NRA's actions lead to the removal from the case of the other six plaintiffs.

I would like to add that Cato had a program about the book with Brian Doherty that can be found at Cato.org in their archived program section. It is worth looking at.

As I have said before the Heller case was one of the most important cases to comer before the court in this short century and the past One too. "Gun Control on Trial will give future historians an insight into this important case.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Update:

Heller aftermath: U.S. v. Arzberger

Posted by: "Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legisl" jrieper@nysrpa.org nyrkba

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:38 am (PST)

From a New York judge. Full story at http://volokh. com/posts/ 1231712651. shtml

... The gun control law is the part of 18 U.S.C. § 3142©(1)(B) that requires that when someone is charged with possessing child pornography (among other crimes) and is freed on bail, he be ordered not to possess any firearm. Here's the discussion by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV (of the Southern District of New York) ... A

year ago, I might well have taken for granted the authority of Congress to require that a person charged with a crime be prohibited from possessing a firearm as a condition of pretrial release.... [but, given D.C. v. Heller, t]o the extent ... that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated

to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest [for Due Process Clause purposes]. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merelyaccused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm ...

2.

Heller aftermath: U.S. v. Arzberger Part 2

Posted by: "Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legisl" jrieper@nysrpa.org nyrkba

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:50 am (PST)

http://www.law. com/jsp/article. jsp?id=120242735 9812&pos= ataglance

Mandatory curfew, electronic monitoring and other pretrial conditions for defendants indicted on child pornography offenses are unconstitutional, a federal magistrate judge has ruled.

Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge James Francis said portions of amendments to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 promulgated by the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act violate the due process clause of the Fifth

Amendment because they impose automatic restrictions on fundamental rights.

In United States v. Arzberger, 08 Cr. 894, Francis said those accused of possessing child pornography are entitled to an individualized determination at a bail hearing before being ordered to follow a curfew with electronic monitoring, surrender their weapons and refrain from contacting anyone involved in their cases.

Jason Arzberger's e-mail address was found by Europol agents during a search of the residence of an Italian producer of child pornography. When the agents learned that he had communicated several times in 2005 and 2006 with the producer about obtaining movies, an undercover FBI agent arranged to sell Arzberger pornographic DVDs depicting 12- and 14-year-old girls.

Arzberger was charged with one count of possessing child pornography. He appeared before Francis on Aug. 27, 2008, and was released on $100,000 bond secured by $10,000 in cash.

While he was ordered to undergo drug testing and a mental-health evaluation, Francis declined to order electronic monitoring. Two days later, the government moved to add additional conditions as required by 18 U.S.C. §3142©(1)(B) and modify the terms of Arzberger's release.

Defense attorney Leonard Joy opposed, challenging the constitutionality of the amendments.

Joy had some case law to back up his arguments, as judges in three other federal jurisdictions had invalidated all or part of the mandatory conditions, including Western District of New York Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio in United States v. Crowell, 2006 WL 3541736 (Dec. 7, 2006).

Regarding curfew with electronic monitoring, Francis said he agreed that it would "impinge on a constitutionally- protected liberty interest."

He said that "the risk that a defendant will be erroneously deprived of the right to travel by the Adam Walsh Amendments is substantial. "

He said a defendant must be allowed to present evidence at a bail hearing as to his "individual characteristics and the particular circumstances of the offense" and contest why such conditions are necessary to ensure his return to court and the safety of the community.

These procedural safeguards, he said, "would reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation at little cost."

Francis said that, until recently, he would not have considered it unreasonable that a defendant be required to surrender a firearm as a condition of pretrial release.

"This all changed," he said, with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), where the court changed the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence by creating what he said was a "protectible liberty interest" in the possession of firearms.

Thus, in the absence of an individualized determination at a bail hearing, requiring the defendant to give up any firearms violates due process, he said.

The same is true of the First Amendment associational rights, which Francis said "could not be more directly affected than they are by the Adam Walsh Amendments: a person accused of certain crimes is categorically prohibited from any contact with a class of individuals. "

He went on to find that the amendments survive a challenge under the excessive bail clause of the Eighth Amendment.

But he also said that "conditioning pretrial release on the relinquishment of constitutionally protected rights in circumstances where the conditions are not necessary to satisfy legitimate governmental purposes" would constitute excessive bail.

So while the government has "articulated legitimate goals, including the protection of the public in general and of minors in particular," whether each condition is "necessary or excessive" cannot be determined without an assessment of Arzberger's individual characteristics, he said.

Finally, the judge rejected a challenge to the amendments made by Joy on separation-of- powers grounds. Joy had contended that Congress was encroaching on the powers of the judiciary by setting mandatory bail conditions.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Amie N. Ely represented the government.

Yours for a free society

[Selene]

They're here!!!!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400350 sponsored by Bobby Rush

And the bastard was a founder of the Chicago Black Panthers - remember when they were armed?!

Edited March 1, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

I like this logic.

http://f320.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid...ox&inline=1

[Brant Gaede]

I like this logic.

http://f320.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid...ox&inline=1

Link doesn't work.

--Brant

[Selene]

http://f320.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid...ox&inline=1 Edited April 28, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 10:04 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!

Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the Second Amendment to state, county and city government laws. In another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule on the constitutionality of one of the government’s most-used legal weapons in the “war on terrorism” — a law that outlaws “material support” to terrorist groups.

The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.

The NY Case involved Sotomayor. The Plaintiff was an attorney from Long Island.

This is the pivotal case for the Second Amendment and we better get in in now while those same five Heller votes are still young, healthy and I hope the best security in the country.

I think that this is a slam dunk through the 14th Amendment.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

It should be a slam dunk via the 14th Amendment.

Let's hope a majority on the Court sees it the way we do.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Adam,

It should be a slam dunk via the 14th Amendment.

Let's hope a majority on the Court sees it the way we do.

Robert Campbell

Yourself, myself and 56 signers. My type of company. I have not seen the complaint yet. However, this attorney argumentation in Heller was superior, as was the Appellate panel Judge Silberman's decision which was pure poetry to me.

I cannot see how the argument can be raised that the 2nd Amendment shall and must apply to the States. Not one of the government's arguments worked in Heller. Now, one of the interesting questions that arises is whether the state can set it's own limitations based on the scheme of public policy, health and welfare, etc., and maintain the balance inherent in "comity"and the individuals inherent right [God or nature] to protect itself.

Adam

Adam