You can retrieve it from here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-con...07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-con...07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf
I thought someone had said there was a limit of 20 for each side.I counted 34 briefs in support of respondent.
I kinda feel bad for those SCOTUS clerks, but then they're getting to work on a case that'll be as famous as Rowe v Wade when it comes down...
Kharn
My take is that it will be as "famous" as Roe v. Wade, but only time will tell if it will be as significant. It will certainly be "famous" -- as in well known. The number of briefs is one indication of just how important this issue is to a lot of people. Even more impressive to me, is the wide range of perspectives, and subjects, covered by the briefs. Most of them put forth a significantly distinct perspective, showing that this is an issue with a lot of different ramifications.Do you think that will be true?
In the 1780s the individual right to have personal arms was simply not questioned by anyone, anywhere. As cultural historians observe, such a situation is commonplace: “the most elemental and important facts about a society are those that are seldom debated and generally regarded as settled.” The Pennsylvania Minority, Massachusetts minority, and New Hampshire proposals as well as Virginia's (and North Carolina's) have to be understood against this background. The right existed, so any "bill of rights" however worded was understood to preserve that personal right. Had anyone publicly suggested otherwise, all hell would have broken loose. And it did not.
The Framers of the Constitution enacted the Bill of Rights in the aftermath of the War of Independence, fought as a consequence of the tyranny of the British Empire. The American colonists understood very well what it meant to live under an oppressive governmental regime. To them, tyranny was more than a word. It was a condition of life in a state of martial law. While the threat of tyranny that led to the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights may not yet be of the magnitude it was in 1776, as Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit reminds us, “However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567, 570
(9th Cir. 2003).
The Militarization Of Police Forces Represents A Modern-Day Standing Army
As Judge Kozinski noted in Silveira, “… tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.
Academics for the Second Amendment
Post Office Box 131254
St. Paul, MN 55113