pageok
pageok
pageok
DC v. Heller, amicus brief on racial issues:

In the Supreme Court's DC handgun ban case, a brief from the Congress on Racial Equality argues that there is a long history in America of gun controls being enacted and applied with racially discriminatory intent. A brief for GeorgiaCarry.org makes similar arguments, with more detail about Georgia. [I think it's wonderful to see a 21st-century in which a black man won 2/3 of the vote in the Georgia Democratic primary, and a gun-rights organization from Georgia is calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to pay attention to problems of racial discrimination.]

In support of the DC handgun ban, a brief from the NAACP LDF uses most of its words to argue against overturning what its says is the large body of anti-individual rights precedent. The brief also points out the high rate of gun crime victimization by blacks. Pages 29-31 of the NAACP LDF brief anticipate the arguments presented CORE/GeorgiaCarry briefs, and argue that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause is sufficient to address any problem of racial discrmination in gun laws. See also NAACP Br. at 19 n.20 (DC's ban is not racially discrminatory, and in any case, Equal Protection and Due Process, are sufficient to address the issue, without need for an individual rights Second Amendment).

I don't think there's any reasonable dispute that much of the gun control in American history is tainted by racial discrimination. But, commenters, do you think that the CORE and GeorgiaCarry briefs overcome the NAACP's anticipatory counter-arguments? Please write your comments after reading the briefs, rather than making other arguments which could have been made, but were not.

gruest:
Rich whites want to use gun control to wantonly arrest poor blacks--who need those guns and will carry either way--much the same way that they use drug laws, but poor, paranoid whites think that gun control is the government taking away their means of resistance and rebellion.
2.8.2008 1:26pm
SJE:
Given the not-so-distant history of violent oppression of minorities in the South, I think minorities should consider whether they would prefer to entrust their safety with NAACP or with a weapon.
2.8.2008 1:30pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Rich whites want to use gun control to wantonly arrest poor blacks--who need those guns and will carry either way--much the same way that they use drug laws, but poor, paranoid whites think that gun control is the government taking away their means of resistance and rebellion.
Actually, a lot what you characterize as "poor, paranoid whites" aren't either poor or paranoid.

Some years back, I was doing a radio talk show in Lafayette, Louisiana, talking about gun control. The callers were overwhelmingly redneck whites--people whom I could barely understand because of the thickness of their accents. Yet when I started to explain about the racist roots of gun control--and how blacks get the "benefit" of government intervention first, then the rest of the society gets screwed over by these wonderful ideas--you could hear the wheels starting to turn in the brains of the callers.
2.8.2008 1:33pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
I'm a little disappointed that the Georgia Carry brief, which relied so heavily on my Kansas Journal of Law &Public Policy paper, didn't cite it. (The particular collection of primary sources was pretty obviously found by reading that paper.)
2.8.2008 1:41pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I do remember a response by Condi Rice on her views on gun control. Her response was that she remembered when her father (a minister) and the other men in her community patrolled it with guns to protect it from those redneck whites.
2.8.2008 1:57pm
David E. Young (mail) (www):
Clayton,

Welcome to the club.
2.8.2008 1:58pm
Millenial Klingon (mail):
Clayton,

What can be done in such cases of plagiarism? If the Georgia Carry brief is cited as influential on the Court, in particular the section they stole from you, is there anything you can do about it?
2.8.2008 1:59pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
I think it's wonderful to see a 21st-century in which a black man won 2/3 of the vote in the Georgia Democratic primary, and a gun-rights organization from Georgia is calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to pay attention to problems of racial discrimination.
The Democratic Party has sure come a long way from where it was 60 years ago. Sadly, though, the vote was still deeply racially divided. (The real news will be when Georgia's Republicans vote to nominate a black candidate for President.) And I doubt the GeorgiaCarry brief is particularly indicative of a deep concern for racial equality. It's probably more a reflection of the fact that on pretty much any issue, both sides are happy to make opportunistic use of racial-discrimination arguments if they can find one.
2.8.2008 2:01pm
Mr. Liberal:
I am going to skirt around the substantive issue here, except to note that I strongly support an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

But, I think citing anything from the Congress of Racial Equality, without explaining that it is a now a conservative organization with very little grassroots support, despite its previous more honorable history, is either based on ignorance or is fundamentally deceptive.

I suspect in this case it is based on ignorance, as Mr. Kopel referred to the organization as the Congress on Racial Equality, when it is correctly referred to as the Congress of Racial Equality.
2.8.2008 2:35pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

What can be done in such cases of plagiarism? If the Georgia Carry brief is cited as influential on the Court, in particular the section they stole from you, is there anything you can do about it?
It isn't plagiarism. They looked up my sources, and used them. That's perfectly acceptable. I just would have liked to see an acknowledgement, that's all.
2.8.2008 2:37pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

The real news will be when Georgia's Republicans vote to nominate a black candidate for President.
Unfortunately, we couldn't get Condi Rice to run. I would have gladly worked and contributed to her campaign. It would be nice to have a seriously pro-gun person on the ballot.
2.8.2008 2:39pm
Ex parte McCardle:
As a seriously disenchanted Georgia Republican, I'll be happy when our state party can support candidates other than Flat-Earthers.
2.8.2008 2:42pm
Visitor Again:
I just would have liked to see an acknowledgement, that's all.

Clayton, take some consolation in the Age of the Internet. Your grievance appears here, it is immediately known to be true to those who have read your article on racism and gun control, and it will be believed by many who read this blog.
2.8.2008 2:45pm
gruest:

Actually, a lot what you characterize as "poor, paranoid whites" aren't either poor or paranoid.

Some years back, I was doing a radio talk show in Lafayette, Louisiana, talking about gun control. The callers were overwhelmingly redneck whites--people whom I could barely understand because of the thickness of their accents. Yet when I started to explain about the racist roots of gun control--and how blacks get the "benefit" of government intervention first, then the rest of the society gets screwed over by these wonderful ideas--you could hear the wheels starting to turn in the brains of the callers.


I'm not sure what you mean, and I'm especially not sure why you don't think the "rednecks" are poor and paranoid.
2.8.2008 3:01pm
Houston Lawyer:
Are you still considered paranoid if they really are out to get your guns?

Barak Obama wants to keep guns out of the inner city. The poor Black folks who live in the inner city have a much greater need for guns for self defense than any other demographic in the country. Second Amendment advocates will uniformly support any (noncriminal) group's right to armed self defense, no matter how unpopular that group may be.
2.8.2008 3:20pm
liberty (mail) (www):

Unfortunately, we couldn't get Condi Rice to run. I would have gladly worked and contributed to her campaign. It would be nice to have a seriously pro-gun person on the ballot.


Indeed. How cool would it be if it was Condi instead of McCain on the Republican side right now?
2.8.2008 3:26pm
The Ace:
After reading the briefs, one question needs answering. Why does the racially discriminatory history of gun control matter? There are certain regions of the country where almost every policy at one point or another was enacted with a racial animus. In addition, there is no evidence that gun control legislation from DC was enacted with a racial animus. That being said, the Georgia brief was a nice read.
2.8.2008 3:41pm
alias:
It isn't plagiarism. They looked up my sources, and used them. That's perfectly acceptable. I just would have liked to see an acknowledgement, that's all.

Assuming this is correct, I'd think that sort of acknowledgment would be appropriate in a law review article but not in an amicus brief. To paraphrase from the Green Bag's submission policy, authors whose articles point you to helpful sources should be recognized in something printed by Hallmark, not the amicus brief.
2.8.2008 3:46pm
ReaderY:
I think the Second Amendment has to stand or falls on its own merits. I don't think racial discrimination arguments are relevant, certainly not from an original intent perspective. The argument that the Supreme Court should treat the Second Amendment differently than it otherwise would because of the history of the relationship between guns and racial discrimination is an interesting and creative argument, but in my view not a sound one.

It strikes me as being more in the nature of a political than a legal argument, an argument that Justices can rule in favor of an individual-rights view with a discussion that doesn't have to make them look like right-wing nuts. Such a context discussion may be politically wise, independent of its legal soundness or relevance.
2.8.2008 3:57pm
Wondering Willy:
ReaderY,

The problem is that the liberals advance these social policy arguments and courts buy them. Even if you believe, as I do (and as you do) that social concerns are irrelevant, they still have to be dealt with.
2.8.2008 4:20pm
Kazinski:
Condi might be cool, but I really don't know what she thinks about a lot of issues such as taxes, BCRA, Health Insurance, etc etc. They are not in her portfolio and I haven't seen her positions.

On defense, foreign policy, guns and the NFL, she is great.
2.8.2008 4:33pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
First, I had never thought I'd see the day when the (ex-)NAACP Legal Defense Fund would work to maintain the authority of local governments to take away civil rights from people.

To answer the question: the N-LDF brief argues that guns kill black people in the District. The CORE brief makes the point that law-abiding black people need the means to defend their lives against armed thugs - a means which local government has systematically denied to black people for centuries -- and that taking away the means has resulted in more deaths instead of fewer. The Georgia Carry brief reinforces the argument by covering the same points.

The beginning of the LDF brief covers the same ground as everything I've ever read from the Handgun Control/VPC side of things: basically: courts all agree, so you should too, and even though the Supreme Court cases on guns mostly date from the Plessy v. Ferguson Jim Crow era, which we kinda wanted to change, the Brown v. Board of Education result was a GOOD change and changing this law would be a BAD change.


I'm a little disappointed that the Georgia Carry brief, which relied so heavily on my Kansas Journal of Law &Public Policy paper, didn't cite it.

First, nested cites are the bane of any brief writer's existence. Second, Clayton is not a member of the Bar. Third, citing his name may add an unwanted note of controversy.
2.8.2008 4:57pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
The discriminatory origins of gun regulations/prohibitions is a perfectly valid avenue of inquiry. While the modern day cities and states may take great pains to enforce the laws in a color blind fashion, gun laws, like those of NYC, heavily favor the rich, famous, and powerful. That has a disparate impact on poor minorities, regardless of the intent of the law.

I wish the CORE brief had taken the point further. As was shown in the brief, political control of disfavored groups can be accomplished by a) disarming them, and b) by withholding police protection from them. Blacks are not the only victims of this.

In the Crown Heights Riots of Aug. 1991, blacks attacked Hassidic Jews in Brooklyn NY, as the result of a car accident where a little black boy was killed. Police stood by and allowed the jewish community to be attacked, and their property damaged. The black Mayor (David Dinkins), and the black Police Commissioner (Outta Town Lee Brown) both vehemently denied ordering the stand down. But somebody sure did.

In 1990 (IIRC), the contemptable racial provocateur, Sonny Carson, led a boycott of an Asian-owned grocery market. The demonstrations were rife with racial epithets and physical intimidation. The black Mayor (David Dinkins), and the black Police Commissioner (Ben Ward), refused to enforce a State Supreme Court order barring picketing within 50 ft. of the store's entrance. Several other Asian-owned businesses were targeted in a coordinated campaign to run such businesses out of black neighborhoods.

I don't believe Dinkins was a racist or anti-Semite, but merely a coward. He had a choice to make as to which group(s) he was willing to piss off, and decided Al Sharpton, Alton Maddoxe, &etc. needed to be mollified. I'll bet at least some of those southern sheriffs made the same political calculation vis-a-vis the Klan.

Throw the prospect of 30 million newly minted citizens from Latin America--and another 60 million of their family members--into the political mix, and American Blacks may find themselves right back in the bad old days.
2.8.2008 4:57pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

After reading the briefs, one question needs answering. Why does the racially discriminatory history of gun control matter? There are certain regions of the country where almost every policy at one point or another was enacted with a racial animus. In addition, there is no evidence that gun control legislation from DC was enacted with a racial animus. That being said, the Georgia brief was a nice read.
If you take a look at how the Supreme Court has handled questions like this before, it might be relevant. If a law is racially disproportionate in its impacts, and was adopted with racist intent, that's enough. See Hunter v. Underwood (1985).

Now, you can argue that the DC law wasn't enacted from racial animus. But isn't it interesting that businesses are exempted from the unloaded firearm requirement, but residences aren't? Gee, I wonder why that it is? Are there some assumptions about the relative ability of the business owners (who were probably largely white back in 1976) relative to the residents of DC (who were largely black)?

Here's a question for you: imagine if we had a law that violated some other explicit Constitutional provision, and had a history of being openly used against blacks for centuries, and more covertly used against blacks in the last forty years. Would the fact that one city--the only large city in America that is overwhelmingly black--decided to impose such a law against everyone in the city, be something that would cause the Court to turn a jaundiced eye towards that law?
2.8.2008 5:04pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Third, citing his name may add an unwanted note of controversy.
In 1970, it would have been controversial to cite a work by a homosexual. My, how the world changes!
2.8.2008 5:22pm
Jeff Shultz (mail):
I'm curious about the Condi supporters - as far as I've seen, she hasn't been much of a success over at the State Dept. and appears to favor coddling countries (North Korea) and non-nation states (Palestine) that have no right to be coddled.

I don't know enough about her other than she was apparently a prodigy at Stanford to evaluate whether or not I'd support her nomination - regardless of skin tone.
2.8.2008 5:34pm
A.W.:
The jews of warsaw staved off their own extinction in WWII, by being armed and belligerent in the best way. The Tusis did the same in Rwanda, when no one else would save them.

As a white guy, i guess i can't relate, but if i was black i would say "from my cold dead hands."

The ACLU affiliate's argument really more or less says that black people can't be trusted with guns. cute.

As far as whether the 14th Amendment is enough, tell me, which would you prefer? One measure of protection? Or two?

Btw, so now the ACLU LIKES government power? Hates individual rights?

More proof that the ACLU is just the legal wing of the dem party.
2.8.2008 5:40pm
wuzzagrunt (mail):
I've always been confounded by the fact that Blacks and Jews are among the most reflexively anti-self defense voting blocks in America. Makes zero sense to me, given their respective histories.
2.8.2008 5:57pm
GM Roper (www):
after reading both briefs, it occurs to me that perhaps the NAACP is primarily interested in keeping victim status for blacks. I could be wrong, and I would certainly hope that I am.
2.8.2008 5:59pm
DustyR (mail) (www):
I take it at face value that NAACP is correct in their arguments wrt Equal Protection and Due Process "are sufficient". But that argument is moot, if I'm using the word properly. The question is if an individual right was recognized and intended in the writing of the Second Amendment. If there was/is, there was/is, and NAACP's begging for reliance on EP and DP is only provide for only equal treatment in either the extent it is allowed or restricted. It seems to me that this argument is of a secondary nature only and, like I indicated, irrelevant at this point.

As for your indication, David, that "much of the gun control in American history is tainted by racial discrimination" I don't have much argument with that, or, for that matter CORE's. At the same time, it seems to me there is a point in time where this discrimination has become somewhat self-inflicted, as, for instance with Washington DC, the population is (according to the 200 census) slightly over 60% black. If blacks' want to eliminate this discrimination, they might try something novel, like voting for representatives who won't impose it on them.
2.8.2008 6:06pm
Point of Fact (mail):
To paraphrase from the Green Bag's submission policy, authors whose articles point you to helpful sources should be recognized in something printed by Hallmark,

Spoken like a practiced liar and a thief. Academic ethics are broader than plagiarism (or even Green Bag's submissions policy). If an academic had done to Clayton what that organization did, that academic might have problems obtaining tenure.
2.8.2008 6:39pm
Max (mail):
There are second order effects of gun control that have some appearance of self discrimination. Someone living in one of the six or seven high crime inner cities in the U.S. will know someone who is a gun crime victim and will likely someone who has committed a violent crime.

There is then, a conflict between self defense and a desire to not see a nephew, cousin, or neighbor's son shot by someone acting in self defense.

Roy Innis is the National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and a member of the Board of Directors of the Natioanl Rifle Association. A fair history of these times will remember and honor these two organizations and men like Roy Innis and Charlton Heston as true champions of civil rights.
2.8.2008 6:42pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

If an academic had done to Clayton what that organization did, that academic might have problems obtaining tenure.
If we win the day, that's the most important part. I'm not indignant; just mildly annoyed.
2.8.2008 7:07pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I've always been confounded by the fact that Blacks and Jews are among the most reflexively anti-self defense voting blocks in America. Makes zero sense to me, given their respective histories.
It isn't clear to me that blacks are "reflexively anti-self defense voting blocks." Part of the problem is that if you are put in the situation where you are told, "You have two choices: be a victim of gang members with guns, or pass gun control" the temptation is strong to go for gun control. And unfortunately, the overseers on the Democratic Party plantation simply refuse to discuss the third option: returning fire.

Jews are an interesting situation. There are a fair number of Jewish gun rights activists. But yes, until the 1970s, "Jewish gun rights activists" was right up there with "black skiier" and "neo-Nazi English professor" for groups that could hold their national meeting in a large phone booth.

Here's a couple of points to keep in mind.

1. Gun ownership in America, at least until recently, was strongly correlated with religious identification. Protestants were most likely to be gun owners, then Catholics, and Jews were least likely. Why? It is also the case that gun ownership tends to be something you learn from your father (whether you are male or female). In general, American Protestants arrived here first. My ancestors, for example, were largely here in the 17th century. One of them was the colonial armourer for New Haven Colony, His son, a gunsmith, testified as an expert witness in America's first firearms product liability suit in 1645.

Catholics arrived next, largely in the early 19th century from Ireland.

Jews arrived last, with small numbers in the 17th and 18th centuries, but most in the mid to late 19th century.

Gun ownership wasn't common in the Old World. Indeed, it was often severely regulated. The practice of owning guns tends to pass down from father to children--and Protestants foremost and Catholics next have had more generations to become part of the gun owning culture.

2. From what I have read in Paul Johnson's History of the Jews and various works about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, there was a well established tradition of pacifism in Eastern European Jewish culture. This was a combination of both laws that limited weapons ownership, and a very practical response to pogroms. If you fought back against an overwhelming large group that enjoyed at least the tacit support of the government (and sometimes more), it would just enrage the attackers. Accepting a few murders allowed the rest of the community to survive, because the pogromists would lose interest after a while.

This was a perfectly logical response until someone came along for whom killing Jews wasn't a temporary expression of rage and petty viciousness, but a methodical, carefully planned campaign of extermination.

I wonder if those survivors of World War II most prone to pacifism came here--while those prepared to fight back hard ended up Israel.
2.8.2008 7:21pm
Visitor Again:
To paraphrase from the Green Bag's submission policy, authors whose articles point you to helpful sources should be recognized in something printed by Hallmark, not the amicus brief.

When a brief writer plunders the rewards of someone else's original research, representing hundreds if not thousands of hours of hard work, decency ought to compel some sort of acknowledgment. All it has to be is something like this in a footnote: These source materials were originally collected in Clayton Cramer, [fill in citation]. Simle decency carries little force these days, of course, and all kinds of excuses are readily found for dispensing with it and taking credit for someone else's labors.
2.8.2008 8:06pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Simle decency carries little force these days, of course, and all kinds of excuses are readily found for dispensing with it and taking credit for someone else's labors.
There are also word limits on these briefs, and every citation consumes a lot of words.
2.8.2008 8:15pm
John (mail):
Blacks are victims of gun violence--therefore, a ban on goods is a good thing, argues the NAACP. So that must account for the solid decrease in the deaths of blacks in D.C. since the gun ban.
2.8.2008 10:59pm
Flash Gordon (mail):
It is not really a good point to say that the racist roots of gun control is a political and not a legal argument because it is both. The Supreme Court has in several cases recognized a distinction between laws that are race neutral in intent but which have a discriminatory impact from laws that were racially motivated when enacted.

Gun control laws were widely enacted in the South after the civil war with the intent that they would not be enforced against whites but would be vigorously enforced against blacks. To the extent the Supreme Court wants to consider the established traditional of gun control in America, it will be helpful for them to know that the tradition of such laws has not been an honorable one.

If the New York Sullivan Law is ever before the Supreme Court the dishonorable intentions behind the enactment of that law might be highly relevant.
2.9.2008 1:44am
Warmongering Lunatic:
Hmm.

The first part of the CORE brief, on slave codes, seems to me to use the discriminatory intent of old gun control laws against slaves as evidence that the right to bear arms was assumed to be an individual right of the citizens, and the laws were to deny slaves a specific individual right of the citizen. Since slave code gun control laws were there to deny an individual right of citizens, there perforce had to be an individual right of the citizen which they were denying. Therefore, modern gun control laws must similarly be denying an individual right even in absence of intent to discriminate.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this section, but it does say —

Clearly, the Court viewed the right to keep and bear arms as one of the fundamental individual rights guaranteed by to American citizens by the Bill of Rights; which black, who the Court claimed were not American citizens, could not enjoy.


The NAACP brief section on racially discriminatory gun control does not address that argument. The arguments for a collective rights interpretation stand in general opposition, however.

The next part, on the Black Codes and the reaction of the Federal Government, seems to me to similarly be concerned with establishing that the Black Codes were trying to deny an individual right (note the Mississippi code specifically exempted black members of the military), and the Federal Government was trying to preserve an individual right; the motives of the Black Codes are secondary. (Again, I may be reading too much into this section.)

The NAACP brief section on racially discriminatory gun control does not address that argument. The arguments for a collective rights interpretation stand in general opposition, however.

The next sections establish that facially neutral laws were enacted with discriminatory intent. The NAACP brief section does address this part in advance. In particular —
The Fourteenth Amendment's protections rightly extend in the face of a colorable assertion that the District's firearm regulations (or those of any other jurisdiction) are racially discriminatory in origin or application, but such a showing has not been made here or even alleged by Respondents.


When dealing with current gun control laws, CORE argues that modern gun control was established on racist motives for facially neutral laws, and continue to be enforced that way, and have disparate impact even if intended and enforced neutrally. The NAACP brief section, again, does address this part, as above.

Rest has not much to do with racially discriminatory laws, it's basically standard arguments that gun control laws cannot be enforced, don't reduce crime, and law-abiding citizens vulnerable.

So, yeah, the NAACP brief seems to do a good job of pre-addressing the CORE brief.
2.9.2008 3:36am
John Monroe (mail):
As the primary author of the GeorgiaCarry.Org amicus brief in Heller, I feel compelled to respond to the discussion of my use of Mr. Cramer's article. First, I should acknowledge that I appreciate Mr. Cramer's work in the subject generally, and I firmly believe it to be of enormous value to the gun rights community. I have no doubt that Mr. Cramer's article was the direct or indirect inspiration to a great many of the sources I used in researching for the brief. It is not true, however, that Mr. Cramer's article was the primary source for my brief. I am pretty sure his article first directed me to the Nieto case, arising out of Ohio. His article may have been the original source for my knowledge of the Kentucky frontier code regarding black gun ownership. Beyond that, I cannot say the Mr. Cramer's article brought me any information I did not have already from other sources. I also have asked a GeorgiaCarry.Org member who provided a great deal of the research for our brief, and he says he did not use Mr. Cramer's article at all. Again, however, I would not doubt that Mr. Cramer inspired many of the other sources used.

As some have pointed out, a legal brief is not an academic work. If it were, I would have included a very lengthy bibliography of persuasive material (from which no citations were used in the brief), including Mr. Cramer's article. Supreme Court rules state what should be included in a brief, and specifically state that extraneous information in an amicus brief "burdens the court." I would be hesitant to include a bibliography that is not requested. Moreover, there is a fiction in the legal world that everyone knows or can readily find the entire body of law. Because of this, one doesn't credit a source that points one to a particular statute or court opinion. One cites the statute or court opinion.

If I had quoted Mr. Cramer's article for a factual proposition (as I did some other academic writings), I would have cited his article appropriately.

I also should mention Mr. Young's post ("Clayton, welcome to the club."). I cannot tell if this is a general comment directed at lawyers generally who have used Mr. Young's work in their briefs, or if Mr. Young is "piling on" GeorgiaCarry.Org. I have not, to my recollection, ever had the pleasure of reading Mr. Young's work. I understand that my co-counsel, Ed Stone, has purchased two books by Mr. Young but has not yet read them. Mr. Young's work was not used at all in the GeorgiaCarry brief.

To conclude, I did, indeed read Mr. Cramer's article prior to filing my brief and I believe his article to be excellent. I did not quote from his article, nor use it as a primary source in the brief. It would not be appropriate, as one poster noted, to nest cites needlessly in a legal brief.
2.11.2008 12:04pm