Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/398979413/Ben-Wassell-Reply-Brief?fbclid=IwAR2qEkn4HdAVEvFJ-EQAy5Ldf63BhpcH1RoXL6lwAlWHBzbPkai7pzV5pgc
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:36:50+00:00

Document:
VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Canada,” Mises.org (Dec. 15, 2015).
(While New Gun Ownership Soared),” Mises.org, (Oct. 27, 2015).
1. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury?
Answer of the court below: Issue not raised.
process and equal protection of the laws?
Answer of the court below: Yes.
4. Was the defendant denied the effective assistance of counsel?
Answer of the court below: No.
I. THE COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY.
FURTHER REQUESTS TO THE COURT.
court’s conclusion to that effect.
defendant’s defense, its instructions were erroneous and prejudicial to the defense.
so, then virtually endorsed that improper testimony!
the SAFE Act, which he believed, allowed him to register a weapon by April.
AMOUNTED TO A DIRECTED VERDICT.
reversal on that ground. See, Defendant’s Brief at Point II-D.
argument made by the defendant.
further, "require[d] a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge"
state to criminalize conduct that only an expert witness could even understand?
counsel was ineffective. See Appellant's Brief at IV and V-C.
their part and not based on evidence.
through the barrel, the gases will then lock the bolt to the rear forcing .
possessing was either a semiautomatic or even a rifle as defined by the statute.
stated by the defendant himself.
lack of intent is not a defense to possession of an assault weapon.
often the Second Circuit have essentially ignored Heller.
which are flawed for many reasons.
Ostrowski v. Schlegel, 108 F.3d 1369 (2nd Cir. 1997).
precipitated by a British gun control mission at Lexington and Concord.
not even exist, thereby declaring their intellectual bankruptcy.
not violate the Second Amendment’s core purpose.
indeed the lives of its citizens.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S.
First Amendment free speech rights); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S.
398, 403 (1963) ( First Amendment religious rights); Brigham City v.
(1984) ( Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S.
436 (1966) ); Salerno, supra, at755 ( Eighth Amendment bail rights).
former in the course of advancing the latter.
“I would simply adopt such an interest-balancing inquiry explicitly.
388 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (commercial speech); Burdick v.
Takushi, 504 U. S. 428, 433 (1992) (election regulation); Mathews v.
Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968) (government employee speech).
capacity. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S.
constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie,432 U. S.
for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.
line of argument must be rejected by this Court.
back position to his initial opposition to any individual right to bear arms.
endorsement of any and all gun control legislation.
purpose is to negate the right to bear arms.
people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others.
sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up.
citizens.” Anarchy, State and Utopia (Basic Books, 1977), pp. 32-33.
undercover officer], now retired and living in Middle Village, Queens.
after me.’ . . .
1. Many high crime cities have strict gun control laws.
low compared to national rates.
control laws, criminals do not.
Hampshire Is Safer Than Canada,” Mises.org (Dec. 15, 2015).
Soared),” Mises.org, (Oct. 27, 2015).
entirely dissimilar to the United States. Id.
the proponents of gun control have failed to make that case.
Consequences of Gun Control,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No.
wrote in his dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F3d 1244 (D. C. Cir.
Brief, Points II and V.
processing system used to prepare the brief.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.