On June 5, a Fifth Circuit panel (Smith, Higginson, and Willett) heard oral argument in United States v. Daniels. On this case, the defendant argues {that a} prohibition on possession of firearms for customers of intoxicants and marijuana violates the Second Modification, as construed by Bruen. No amicus briefs have been filed on this case. The one submissions have been made by the Federal Public Defender and the Division of Justice. Two days after oral argument, the panel issued a directive:
The courtroom invitations briefs from amici curiae who want to provide related data relating to the historical past and custom of restrictions on the use and possession of firearms as pertinent to the problems introduced on this case. Of explicit curiosity are historic gun rules relevant to intoxicated or impaired people. Such briefs have to be filed by July 6, 2023 (no matter any time limitations set by rule).
I wholeheartedly endorse this directive. In my article, Originalism and Stare Decisis within the Decrease Courts, I clarify that decrease courts can treatment the shortage of originalist briefing by inviting amici to submit briefs. Particularly, with such a request, the panel is indicating there’s curiosity. Furthermore, there isn’t any want to hunt go away from the events.
I encourage students on the Second Modification to submit briefs on this case. Hunter Biden’s attorneys may additionally have an interest!
Going ahead, the Fifth Circuit, and different courts, ought to create some form of repository of such requests, and supply public notification. At it stands, solely the handful of attorneys who made appearances in these circumstances would have seen the directive. Fortunately, a number of individuals pointed it out to me.
