SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Case to follow: Kolbe v Hogan

[Bob Hurt]

A couple of days ago I presented the text of Dr. Edwin Vieira's motion (see the link below) for leave to file an Amici Curiae brief in the Kolbe v Hogan case.  The case  deals with whether the 2nd Amendment protects the people's right to keep and bear semi-automatic assault rifles and magazines.   Dr. Vieira makes the point that the 2nd Amendment's mention of militia as a justification for the right to keep and bear arms automatically means the people have the right to keep and bear MILITARY-STYLE weaponry, for otherwise how shall they repel invasion and suppress insurrection by evil ones wielding such weapons?

Please read the petition and related briefs here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

The contents up till now:

Kolbe v. Hogan

 Pending petition

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-127	4th Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Issues: (1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Petition of the day (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
May 03 2017	Application (16A1074) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 22, 2017 to July 21, 2017, submitted to The Chief Justice.
May 10 2017	Application (16A1074) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 21, 2017.
Jul 21 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 25, 2017)
Aug 10 2017	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 10, 2017.
Aug 21 2017	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Aug 23 2017	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al.
Aug 23 2017	Brief amici curiae of Pink Pistols, et al. filed.
Aug 25 2017	Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups, et al. filed.
Aug 25 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.
Aug 25 2017	Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., et al. filed.
Aug 25 2017	Brief amici curiae of State of West Virginia and 20 Other States filed.
Aug 25 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.

Incidentally, you might get something from this dialogue:


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bob Hurt wrote:

Bravo.  Patriots would appreciate your reciting the substance of the brief (which Becraft forwarded to me) in a Youtube video.  It might go viral, and create a groundswell of rebuke for the 4th Circuit's effort to emasculate the 2nd Amendment.

On 2017-09-26 14:07, Edwin Vieira wrote:

What you will notice (if you bother to read all of the amici briefs supporting Kolbe) is (i) that I am the only one talking about "the 'M' word", and (ii) I am the only one to whom Kolbe's attorneys denied consent to file an amicus brief. If that does not tell you all you need to know, nothing does.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Bob Hurt wrote:

Few analysts seem willing to confess that the small arms' military nature that so worries lawmakers and offends the courts constitutes the main reason for protecting the right of "the people" to keep and bear them.  The people need military-style weapons in order effectively to suppress insurrectors and repel invaders who will certainly have such weapons themselves.

I find it interesting that the analysts seem unwilling to discuss the meaning of "the people" and the fact that it certainly does NOT consist of all the people of the land, but includes ONLY those with nexus to government.  In the context of the USA of the 1780's, it included voters and older teenagers who would sally forth to engage an enemy, and in those days voters included only free white adult propertied males.  America needs a similar "responsibility" test for nexus to government, now that the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments have expanded the ranks of voters to include non-Caucasians, children 18 and over, and women. 

THAT must worry lawmakers.  They know that the voter ranks contain numerous irresponsible people whom they cannot trust to keep and bear arms responsibly.  They worry even more when watching newsreels of Negro rioters using any excuse to loot, destroy property, and injure innocents in the streets.  What if those rioters carried assault weapons?

Clearly, America needs a new test of responsibility for allowing people to vote and carry dangerous semi-automatic or automatic weapons like pistols and rifles with magazines holding dozens of rounds.  The putative nexus to government just does not suffice as a responsibility test.  I suggest at the very least that people should have to pass a constitution competency test before voting or carrying a gun. That would screen out the 25% of the population with IQ too low to graduate from high school.

My point:  your brief rightly called the justices' attention to the necessarily military nature of the arms the people have the right to keep and bear, but it did not salve the jurists' real fear:  military-style weapons in the hands of America's millions of irresponsibles with voting rights. 

On 2017-09-26 21:32, Edwin Vieira wrote:

The Militia were never limited to "voters". Typically, they included every able-bodied free man from 16 to usually 50 or more years of age. It would seem obvious that, today, the young ones would receive Militia training which would answer your concerns, especially if pre-Militia education and training were mandatory in all schools, as it should be. In any event, no judge has any right to introduce limits on the Militia because of his personal concerns. If that were allowable at all (i.e., if the definition of "Militia" were not a constitutional, but only a statutory, matter) it would be for the legislature to decide.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Bob Hurt  wrote:

You have made an excellent point.  Free men did not include slaves, and probably did not include members of Indian tribes.  Those excluded from "free" had questionable motive to defend the land against invaders or insurrectionists or even rogue government.  Who in the USA NOW has questionable motive, though free?  Illegal aliens? Islamic terrorists?  Communists? Negros and Mestizos angry over slavery and "white oppression?"

My point: no amount of indoctrination will likely convince such people to become honest militia members.  The Afghan army has had similar problems with Taliban (disguised as Afghan soldiers) attacking the Army base and causing death and destruction.  Don't those in government have a reasonable worry about such well-armed enemies in our midst?

On 2017-09-27 08:30, Edwin Vieira wrote:

The Militia are components of the government; so it is their responsibility, first and foremost, to deal with the sort of situations you describe. Illegal aliens, terrorists, and such would not qualify for the Militia at all, by hypothesis. We had anti-communist laws in the 1950s and 1960s that kept communists out of, for example, labor union leadership; the same could be resurrected for the Militia. As far as "angry" individuals were concerned, one taste of proper Militia discipline for manifestations of their "anger" would teach them a lesson; and proper indoctrination would teach them another. The last thing that should be desired is to have the likes of Pelosi and Schumer defining who can be a member of the Militia...because then I guarantee that neither you nor I would qualify.

--

⚓ Bob Hurt 👓 Blog 1 2   f   t   ✉ Email     📞 (727) 669-5511 ☕ 2460 Persian Drive #70 ✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA ＄ Donate  to Law Scholarship ✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter 🔨 Learn How to Win in Court ⚡ Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank