Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply to Mr. Michel's Response

Reply to Mr. Michel's Response

Ratings: (0)|Views: 85|Likes:
Published by Alan Beck
Great up against the NRA for armament rights
Great up against the NRA for armament rights

More info:

Published by: Alan Beck on Apr 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
 No. 12-17808
In The United States Court of AppealsFor The Ninth Circuit
 ___________ 
George K. Young Jr.
 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.State of Hawaii et al.
 Defendants-Appellees
. ___________ 
Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District CourtFor the District of HawaiiCiv. No. 12-00336 HG BMK The Honorable Judge Helen GillmorUnited States District Court Judge
 ___________ 
Reply to
 Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco,
 
No. 12-17803 Responseto Mr. Young
s Motion to Reply or Bind
 ___________ 
ALAN BECK Esq.4780 Governor DriveSan Diego, California, 92122
Case: 12-17808 04/28/2013 ID: 8607420 DktEntry: 30 Page: 1 of 13
 
 
Introduction
Mr. Young replies to Appellants in
 Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco
, No. 12-17803 (
Jackson
). The legal issues are related and the positions taken are as different as the two parties who bring the claims. Mr. Younghas found himself adversarial to legal acumen of the highest pedigree. JacksonPlaintiffs
elegant sophistry argues these two appeals are not related. This is infurtherance of a litigation strategy conceived by sophisticated minds to overturn afairly tepid restriction on hollow point ammunition. By doing so they ignore thedeplorable effects a judgment on the merits will have on the civil rights of all of the Ninth Circuit. The two appeals are very much related and present two verydifferent paths for this Circuit.Mr. Young and Jackson Plaintiffs
Positions Are IncongruentJackson Plaintiffs state their positio
n is congruent with Mr. Young’s by
resort to a pedantic argument which misconstrues the reasons given by Mr. Youngas to why these appeals are related. They argue
“w
hether ammunition generally,[is] a necessary component of a functional firearm, is protected by the SecondAmendment is not in dispute, nor is the
 Jackson
Appellants’ position on this issue
incongruent with the
Young 
Appell
ant’s.”
 
See
Response of Jackson Plaintiffs at10. By this logic, cases are never related unless they challenged identical statues.
Case: 12-17808 04/28/2013 ID: 8607420 DktEntry: 30 Page: 2 of 13
 
 
This is not the issue that relates the appeals. The issue that relates the twoappeals is how to define a class of ammunition. Jackson Appellants
argueshollow point ammunition is a class of ammunition in common use. Analogizingimproperly from
 Heller 
they argue a categorical ban on hollow point ammunitionwould fail any level of scrutiny. This would leave a ban on any rarely used (notnecessarily deadly) ammunition not in common use protection. That is amisapplication of 
 Heller 
as shown in the motion to align or expedite ands
upplemental brief. Mr. Young’s argument simplified is ammunition should be
categorized by the type of arm they are used with. Complete bans on allammunition used by protected arms need to survive strict scrutiny.By misapplying the common use test, esoteric ammunition could be bannedwithout any government interest shown. Mr. Young argues that the burden isalways on the government to show a reason why it can come and take. JacksonPlaintiffs
argument asks for greater protection for ammunition commonlymanufactured but gives no protection for newly developed or rarely usedammunition. Their position allows government interference with innovation andthe free market by governmental forces. It also is attack personal liberty indefiance of Heller which stands for individual choice as to the means peopledefend their lives.
Case: 12-17808 04/28/2013 ID: 8607420 DktEntry: 30 Page: 3 of 13

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->