Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, the American Bar Association (“ABA”), as amicus curiae, respectfully submits that the decision of the divided panel of the D.C. Circuit should be reversed, because the decision improperly rejected the long and consistent line of precedent on which this Nation has built its entire matrix of gun regulation.


William H. Neukom
January 11, 2008
President American Bar Association
Brief of the American Bar Association as amicus curiae supporting petitioners.
[Similar things could have been said about passage of the 13th Amendment or any number of things such as allowing women to vote and laws against using birth control. Hence his justification for rejecting the individual rights viewpoint of the D.C. Circuit carries no weight.


But, assuming his characterization of the nations gun laws is true, then one should reasonable expect the “entire matrix of gun regulation” to collapse under the Heller decision. I wish that were true. I think it’s possible but unlikely. We will have to play our game very, very, well in order to even approximate this.


Based on these two items which Neukum apparently got wrong I must conclude that Neukom doesn’t know what he is talking about and his opinion, in general, should be severely discounted.–Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day–William H. Neukom

  1. He’s just a lawyer hired to support a position. It reminds me of a high school class in which we were assigned to argue one side of an issue as best we could, then trade places and argue the opposiing side as best we could. We were expected to argue either position equally well. That’s a lawyer for you, or a good play actor.

    In the absense of reason, principles and standards, even mutually exclusive assertions can remain in conflict for long periods without resolution. Usually though, in the absense of reason, principles and standards it’s going to be the most agressive and evil side that dominates. Republicans and Democrats come to mind. Israel and the Palestinians. Vice laws verses the vice trade. There are a million of them.

  2. In this case he is representing the American Bar Association. It is (was?) the opinion of The Bar that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals.

  3. Sure, well, totalitarians put nothing outside of politics. Interestingly, it turns out that the term “totalitarian” was originally billed as a positive thing. It was a selling point, meant to imply that all were totally included.

    It was only after evidence of the mass murders began to circulate that the term assumed negative connotations. Same goes for the words “Fascist”, “Nazi” and the name, Mussolini.

    (I just started reading “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg. Wow. I mean, wow. [Oh and in fact the very term “Liberal Fascism” was coined as a positive term by the Liberal Fascists {who would no doubt feel at home in the American Bar Association}])

  4. “At the very least, taking this approach under
    the Second Amendment would prompt decades of
    litigation.”

    And this is bad for lawyers how?

  5. Boy, the logic of disarmament just keeps getting weirder. Now they’re slamming the transmission in reverse while still traveling forward at full speed. After decades of promoting a sparse, oddball collection of (a?) federal and state rulings as gospel, it’s now time to ignore the higher courts entirely…. in order to protect statutes?

    It’s not our problem that the “matrix” of restrictions are a mess. That’s what they get for building a house of cards on top of a tax law. One little breeze blowing back toward the Constitution, and nobody can make sense out of the result.

Comments are closed.