AmmoLand.com

Bloomfield Press Files Amicus Brief In Chicago Gun-Ban Case
Bill of Rights at serious risk in Supreme Court case.

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Should individual states be required to honor your guarantees under the Bill of Rights?

Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to say yes, in an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief just filed.

The goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They are not currently obligated to do so. This principle is up for review in McDonald v. Chicago, expected to be argued at the High Court in February, 2010, and decided by June. See the filing here — http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 only to control Congress (e.g., “Congress shall make no law…”), and the High Court has only applied the Bill to the states in bits and pieces. Studies have shown most people are unaware of this.

The 14th Amendment in 1868 said states cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, or deprive or deny the rights of the people, but it provided few details — and the High Court has been evaluating that since then.

Working piecemeal, the Court has declared states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial and more. This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest-profile case of its kind — the right to arms in the Second Amendment.

Chicago has flatly banned this right, leaving its citizens defenseless, and insists it has the power to do so. The city’s ban does little to disarm hardened criminals who simply roam free, carrying guns illegally at will.

“The core issue is whether a state has legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people,” says Alan Korwin, author of eight books on gun law and the publisher at Bloomfield Press, the nation’s largest producer and distributor of gun-law books. “This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right,” he says.

The avowedly anti-gun-rights Washington Post observed that,

“Lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.”

That sentiment was echoed in the similarly anti-rights LA Times, which stated editorially,

“It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment,” but continued, “Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others… this is no time for the Court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”

Bloomfield Press joins 34 California DAs, eight Nevada DAs, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack (the hero of the successful Brady-bill case that set 10th Amendment limits on federal invasion of states’ rights), several law-enforcement associations, and citizens’ rights groups in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia in the amicus filing.

Mr. Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.

The main points argued include:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a deeply rooted “fundamental right” and thus properly applied to the states;
2. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment necessarily incorporates the Second Amendment to apply against the states;
3. The right to armed self defense is a fundamental right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court dating back to the 19th century;
4. The right to self defense, in addition to the right to arms, has been well established as fundamental for centuries in state constitutions, and in federal law and state law;
5. Firearms are and have always been recognized as essential to exercise the right to self defense, with each one reliant upon the other; and
6. Federalism (states rights) presents no obstacle to incorporating a fundamental right of the people.

The entire brief may be downloaded here
(it will be on the Supreme Court website shortly).

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

——–

The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amici include the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), The Texas Concealed Handgun Association (TCHA), and The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), all easily googled. The complete list of amici with descriptions of their interests are in the brief.

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland No Comments »

Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases
High Court has examined every aspect of self defense.
Entire nation falsely believes the issue has never come up.
by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn’t think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, “I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing tenet of American law.

The Bloomfield Press book “Supreme Court Gun Cases” (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme Court’s library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time. Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” released in 2008. The fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in “The Heller Case” book, http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm, and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company’s website, http://www.gunlaws.com, using the National Directory button.

The brief index below is a convenient research and navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one.

The news media, pundits, Congress and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer have unfortunately exhibited complete ignorance of these cases, and public policy is harmed by that lack of knowledge.

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate. The news media is encouraged to correct any misconceptions that may exist on this subject and in Ms. Sotomayer’s sworn testimony.

IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER:

KEY: Name Date Citation Page

Acers v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 388 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].

Alberty v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 499 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].

Allen v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 492 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].

Allison v. United States 1895 160 U.S. 203 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].

Andersen v. United States 1898 170 U.S. 481 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].

Beard v. United States 1895 158 U.S. 550 208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].

Brown v. United States 1921 256 U.S. 335 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].

Gourko v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 183 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].

Logan v. United States 1892 144 U.S. 263 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].

Rowe v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 546 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].

Starr v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 614 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].

Tennessee v. Garner 1985 471 U.S. 1 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].

Thompson v. United States 1894 155 U.S. 271 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].

Wallace v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 466 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].

If this report works for you — please tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery: alan@gunlaws.com

Filed under: Gun Gear, Gun Rights News, Shooting Media News by Ammoland 5 Comments »