Code, within which a taxpayer falls based upon his or her taxable income. v BRACTON, HENRY DE Henry de Bracton was a medieval JURIST and priest whose masterful treatise on COMMON LAW and procedure provided a framework for the early English legal system. Bracton’s famous De legibus et consuetudi- nibus Angliae (On the laws and customs of England) was a systematic explanation of ENGLISH LAW for judges and practitioners during the reign of King Henry III. De legibus and another of Bracton’s works, Note-Book, helped shape the system of CASE LAW and pleadings that began during the monarchy of King Henry II. Although reliance on Bracton’s works declined as English statutory law grew, historians con- sider De legibus the high point of medieval legal scholarship. Bracton’s exact date of birth early in the thirteenth century is unknown. His family, whose name sometimes appears as Bratton or Bretton, owned land near Devon, England. Richard, Earl of Cornwall, the brother of King Henry III, and William de Raleigh, a prominent common-law judge, were important benefactors who helped advance Bracton’s legal career. By 1240 Bracton had the job of civil servant, a relatively lucrative positio n during the Middle Ages. In 1245 he was appo inted to the judiciary. In 1247 he became a member of the King’s Bench, where he served for ten years. After 1257 he held several assignments, including that of chancellor of Exeter Cathedral. During the Middle Ages it was not unusual for a priest to serve also as a judge. De legib us first appeared after Bracton’ s death in 1268. Although the original manuscript is lost, approximately 300 reedited and hand copied manuscripts circulated during the thir- teenth and fourteenth centuries. Intended as a guide to English law and procedure, De legibus combines aspects of Roman and CANON LAW. Bracton was influenced by the Institutes of Justinian I and by medieval textbooks of Axo, Tancred, and Raymond of Penafort. His treatise includes a section of basic principles and a section of writs and commentary. It emphasizes the development and application of case law as written by judges grappling with medieval legal questions. Bracton’s Note-Book is a compendium of two thousand judicial opinions. Some historians believe that other medieval jurists contributed to the work, which was discovered in 1884. Note-Book was edited by FREDERIC W. MAITLAND and published in 1887. v BRADFORD, WILLIAM (1729–1808) William Bradford, born November 4, 1729, in Plympton, Massachusetts, was a student of both law and medicine. Af ter practicing medicine in Warren, Rhode Island, Bradford was admitted to the bar in 1767 and established his legal practice in Bristol, Rhode Island. From 1764 to 1765 Bradford was a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, and served as speaker. He continued his career Henry De Bracton c. 1210–1268 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ 1216 King Henry III crowned king of England 1235 Estimated time Bracton started writing De legibus 1240 First official record of Bracton; held job as civil servant 1245 Appointed justice itinerant for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire 1247 Became a member of the King's Bench 1259 Estimated time Bracton finished writing De legibus 1260–67 Served as justice itinerant for western counties of England 1272 Henry III died 1268 Died, England; De legibus published 1264 Became chancellor of Exeter Cathedral 1887 Note-Book published, edited by Frederic W. Maitland 1884 Note-Book discovered by Professor Vinogradoff of Moscow ▼▼ ▼▼ 12251225 12001200 12501250 18751875 19001900 ◆ Born, England GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 98 BRACTON, HENRY DE in that state, serving on the Rhode Island Committee of Correspondence in 1773, and acting as deputy governor of Rhode Island from 1775 to 1778. Bradford was elected senator from Rhode Island in 1793, serving in the U.S. Senate until 1797, and acting as president pro tem in that same year. He died July 6, 1808, in Bristol. v BRADFORD, WILLIAM (1755–95) William Bradford was born September 14, 1755, in Philadelphia. He graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor of arts degree in 1772 and a master of arts degree in 1775. Before beginning his legal career Bradford served in the Revolutionary War from 1776 to 1779, fought in numerous battles, including Valley Forge, and emerged with the rank of colonel in the Continental army. Af ter his tour of duty, he was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar and established a legal practice in Yorktown, Pennsylvania. Bradford served as Pennsylvania attorney general for an eleven-year period, from 1780 to 1791. He entered the judiciary in the latter year and presided as judge of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for three years . In 1794 Bradford was selected by President GEORGE WASHINGTON to serve as U.S. Attorney General for one year, the second man to hold this post. He died August 23, 1795, and was buried in Burlington, New Jersey. v BRADLEY, JOSEPH P. Joseph P. Bradley was appo inted to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1870 in a successful move by President ULYSSES S. GRANT to pack the court, or fill vacancies on the bench with jurists who supported the president’s actions. Grant nomi- nated Bradley and fellow Republican WILLIAM STRONG with the almost public understanding William Bradford 1729–1808 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ❖ 1729 Born, Plympton, Mass. 1764–65 Served as speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives 1773 Served on the Rhode Island Committee of Correspondence 1767 Admitted to bar in Rhode Island 1775–78 Served as deputy governor of Rhode Island 1775–83 American Revolution 1797 Retired from U.S. Senate 1793 Elected to the U.S. Senate 1790 Rhode Island became last colony to ratify U.S. Constitution; became 13th state in the Union 1787 Delaware was first colony to ratify U.S. Constitution; became first state in the Union 1808 Died, Bristol, R.I. ▼▼ ▼▼ 17501750 17251725 17751775 18001800 18251825 William Bradford 1755–1795 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ 1755 Born, Philadelphia, Pa. 1772 Earned B.A. from Princeton University 1776–79 Served on the American side in the Revolutionary War 1775–83 American Revolution 1782 Pleaded Pennsylvania's case against Connecticut before the Congressional Commmission on Wyoming land titles 1780–91 Served as attorney general of Pennsylvania 1791 Appointed justice of Pennsylvania Supreme Court by Governor Mifflin 1795 Died, Burlington, N.J. 1794 Appointed U.S. attorney general by President Washington 1792–93 Led drive to revise Pennsylvania's criminal jurisprudence ▼▼ ▼▼ 1775177517501750 18001800 ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BRADLEY, JOSEPH P. 99 that they would save the invalidated LEGAL TENDER Act (12 Stat. 345, 532, 709). As expected, Bradley and Strong voted to uphold the constitutionality of the act. Bradley went on to serve as an associate justice for 22 years and, as was the custom, as a traveling circuit judge for the Fifth (Southern) Circuit. The eldest of 11 children, JOSEPH BRADLEY was born March 14, 1813, in Berne, New York, and raised on a farm. He was given no middle name at birth; his middle initial was likely an expansion he made of his name to honor his father. He relied on his intelligence, ambition, and strong work ethic to make a name for himself in the legal profession. An 1836 graduate of New Jersey’s Rutgers College, Bradley was a self-taught lawyer who was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1839. In 1859, he received an honorary law degree from Lafayette College, in Easton, Pennsylvania. Bradley’s MARRIAGE to Mary Hornblower helped to open doors in the legal community. His wife’s father, WILLIAM HORNBLOWER, was chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Bradley built a successful law practice with a large business clientele that included the troubled Camden and Amboy Railroad. His expertise was in PATENT and COMMERCIAL LAW. Bradley’s appointment to the Supreme Court on February 7, 1870 came shortly after the Court ruled that the Legal Tender Act was unconsti- tutional. In 1862, Congress had used the act to issue treasury notes as a substitute for gold in its efforts to pay off Civil War debts. Upon reviewing the legislation, the Supreme Court invalidated the issuance of the paper money, in Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603, 19 L. Ed. 513 (1870) (the first of what became known as the Legal Tender Cases). Court observers predicted that Grant’s new appointees would agree to reverse Hepburn because of their long-standing ties to commer- cial interests. They were righ t: Bradley and Strong did vote to overturn, thereby upholding the legality of the notes (Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis, 79 U.S. [12 Wall.] 457, 20 L. Ed. 287 [1871], heard concurrently). Bradley’s Supreme Court and CIRCUIT COURT opinions often fail the test of time. Although his contemporaries praised him for his keen intellect and legal acumen, many of his deci- sions are, by today’s standards, objectionable in outcome and reasoning. Joseph P. Bradley 1813–1892 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ 1813 Born, Berne, N.Y. 1836 Graduated from Rutgers College 1859 Received honorary law degree from Lafayette College 1861–65 Civil War 1870 Nominated to U.S. Supreme Court by President Grant 1873 Concurred with Bradwell v. Illinois decision 1877 Served as swing vote in Hayes-Tilden election decision 1883 Wrote Civil Rights opinions that paved way for Jim Crow laws 1892 Died, Washington, D.C. ▼▼ ▼▼ 18251825 18001800 18501850 18751875 19001900 Joseph P. Bradley. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS THE STUDY OF LAW [IS] A SUBJECT OF LIVING INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE , INDE- PENDENT OF ITS ATTRACTIONS AS A PROFESSIONAL CALLING . —JOSEPH P. BRADLEY GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 100 BRADLEY, JOSEPH P. For example, Bradley wrote the majority opinion in the infamous CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 (1883), which declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 336) unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Act was established to ensure the equal treatment of African-Americans in public facilities and accommodations. In effect, that decision sanc- tioned racial SEGREGATION and paved the way for discriminatory JIM CROW LAWS. According to the Court, civil rights legisla- tion could not prevent discrimination by private individuals. Although the THIRTEENTH AMEND- MENT of the U.S. Constitution outlawed SLAVERY, and the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT barred racial discrimination by states, discrimination by private citizens was allowable, according to the Court. Bradley argued that prejudice was not amenable to legislation. If private business owners refused to serve or accommodate African-Americans, Congress could not force them to do so. In this view, purely private conduct was not covered by the post–Civil War constitutional amendments. In a famous dissent, Associate Justice JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN pointed out that because the restaurants, inns, theaters, and hotels owned by private citizens are actually quite public, discrimination against African-Americans in these places should not be tolerated. Harlan’s dissent was later used to bolster support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000 et seq.). In Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 (1872), Bradley concurred in the decision to reject Myra Bradwell’s bid to practice law in Illinois. Bradwell had studied law with her husband and had passed the Illinois BAR EXAMINATION. However, Illinois denied her ADMISSION TO THE BAR because she was female. Bradwell appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the U.S. Constitution protected her right to practice in her chosen profe ssion. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Bradley wrote in concurring DICTA that God had created woman to be wife and mother, not lawyer. In the SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), Bradley’s dissent foretold the Court’s changing philoso- phy on due process for businesses. In those cases, Louisiana butchers objected to a state law that allowed only one company to slaughter cattle in New Orleans. The Court sided with the state, but Bradley’s dissent was later used to argue for the protection of commercial enter- prises from state government intrusion. Bradley was chosen in 1877 to sit on the Hayes-Tilden Electoral Commission to deter- mine the results of the presidential election between Republican candidate RUTHERFORD B. HAYES and his Democratic opponent, SAMUEL J. TILDEN. Bradley was the swing vote; he replaced Justice DAVID DAVIS, a political independent who could not fulfill his term on the electoral commission. Bradley had voted for Hayes, his fellow Republican. Bradley died in Washington, D.C., on January 22, 1892, at the age of 79. FURTHER READINGS Collins, Michael C. 1996. “Justice Bradley’s Civil Rights Odyssey Revisited.” Tulane Law Review 70 (June). Congressional Quarterly. 2004. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Cushman, Claire. 1996. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Lurie, Jonathan. 1986. “Mr. Justice Bradley: A Reassessment.” Seton Hall Law Review 16 (spring). v BRADWELL, MYRA COLBY Myra Bradwell was a legal editor and an early leader in the struggle for women’s rights, espe- cially in the legal profession. Bradwell was born February 12, 1831, in Manchester, Vermont. After an early childhood in Portage, New York, she moved with her family to Illinois and attended the ladies seminary in Elgin, where she subsequently became a teacher. In 1852 she married James B. Bradwell, an Englishman who had immigrat- ed to the United States and studied law in Memphis, Tennessee. The Bradwells established a private school in Memphis but moved to Chicago in 1854. There James Bradwell opened a law office and eventually became a judge of the Cook County Court. After the move to Chicago Bradwell began to study law with her husband with the intention of becoming his assistant; she later decided to establish a practice of her own. In 1868 she founded the Chicago Legal News, a weekly legal newspaper. With Bradwell serving as both editor and business manager, the News quickly became a success. It was chartered by GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BRADWELL, MYRA COLBY 101 the Illinois legislature, which also passed legislation establishing the paper as a valid place for the publication of legal notices and allowing state laws and opinions published in the paper to be offered as evidence in court. Under her editorial leadership, the News called for the regulation of corporations, the enactment of zoning ordinances, and the establishment of professional standards for the legal profession. The News building was destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871 but Bradwell quickly arranged to have the paper printed in Milwaukee, Wiscon- sin, and published the next issue on schedule. In 1869, after passing the state BAR EXAMINA- TION , Bradwell applied to the Illinois Supreme Court for ADMISSION TO THE BAR. The court rejected her application on the ground that as a married woman she “would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client.” She reap- plied, but the co urt rejected her again , this time because she was a woman, regardless of her marital status. The court said that if it were to admit women to the bar, it would be exercising its authority in a man ner “never contemplat ed” by the state legislature when it granted that authority (In re Bradwell, 55 Ill. 535 [1870]). She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the Illinois decision, saying that it could not interfere with each state’s right to regulate the granting of licenses within its borders (Bradwell v. People, 16 Wall [83 U.S.] 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 [1872]). In 1882, however, the Illinois legislature passed a law guaranteeing all persons, regardless of sex, the right to select a profession as they wished. Although Bradwell never reapplied for admission to the bar, the Illinois Supreme Court informed her that her original application had been accepted. As a result, she became the first woman member of the Illinois State BAR ASSOCIATION ; she was also the first woman member of the Illinois Press Association. On March 28, 1892, she was admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to her efforts to win admission to the bar, Bradwell played a role in the broader women’s rights movement. She was active in the Illinois Woman Suffrage Association and helped form the American Woman Suffrage Associa- tion. She was also influential in the passage of laws by the Illinois legislature that gave married women the right to keep wages they earned and protected the rights of widows. During the latter years of her life, Bradwell was one of a number of Chicago citizens who worked to secure the World’s Fair for their city. Myra Colby Bradwell 1831–1894 ❖ ❖ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1831 Born, Manchester, Vt. 1843 Colby family moved to Chicago 1854 Bradwells moved to Chicago 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1868 Founded Chicago Legal News 1869 Passed Illinois bar exam; denied admission to the bar 1873 U.S. Supreme Court upheld Illinois decision 1875 Secured release of Mary Todd Lincoln from insane asylum 1871 News printed from Milwaukee after fire destroyed building 1882 Illinois outlawed sex- discrimination in professions; became first woman member of Illinois bar 1892 Became the first woman admitted to practice before U.S. Supreme Court 1894 Died, Chicago, Ill. ▼▼ ▼▼ 18251825 19001900 18751875 18501850 Myra Colby Bradwell. HULTON ARCHIVE/ GETTY IMAGES “ONE THING WE CLAIM —THAT WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO THINK AND ACT AS AN INDIVIDUAL — BELIEVING IF THE GREAT FATHER HAD INTENDED IT TO BE OTHERWISE , HE WOULD HAVE PLACED EVE IN A CAGE AND GIVEN ADAM THE KEY .” —MYRA BRADWELL GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 102 BRADWELL, MYRA COLBY When the fair was held in 1893 she chaired the committee on law reform of its AUXILIARY congress. Bradwell died February 14, 1894, in Chicago, Illinois. FURTHER READINGS Cushman, Claire, ed. 1996. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Friedman, Jane M. 1993. America’s First Woman Lawyer: The Biography of Myra Bradwell. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Paper, Lewis J. 1983. Brandeis: An Intimate Biography. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Urofsky, Melvin I. 1981. LouisD.BrandeisandtheProgressive Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown. CROSS REFERENCES “Bradwell v. Illinois” (Appendix, Primary Document). BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are dedicated to reducing gun deaths and injuries through education, legislative reform, and LITIGATION. The history of the organizations can be traced back to 1974 when Dr. Mark Borinsky, a victim of gun violence, established Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), a grassroots organization. Borinsky’sgoalwasto create common sense gun laws. He was joined in 1975 by Nelson “Pete” Shields, who had lost a son to a serial killer. In 1983 the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) was formed by Shields to focus on education and research in GUN CONTROL while the HCI remained a LOBBYING group. In 1985 current chairperson Sarah Brady joined the group after her husband, Jim Brady, was shot and seriously wounded during the 1981 ASSASSINATION attempt on President RONALD REAGAN . In 2001 Handgun Control was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. According to the Brady Campaign website, its mission remains the same: to “work to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regula- tions a nd public poli cies through g rassroots activism, electing pro-gun control public o fficials and increasing public awareness of gun violence.” In 2001 the Brady Center merged with the Million Mom March Chapters. The Million Mom March effort began as a march on Washington, D.C., and evolved into a large national organization that fights gun violence. The Milli on Mom March has 75 chapters around the United States. The legal arm of the Brady Center is the Legal Action Project (LAP). Its goal is to “represent gun violence victims and the PUBLIC INTEREST in the courts.” For example, LAP provides free legal assistance to victims in lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers, and owners. It pushes for legislation that will force the gun industry to improve the safety in gun design and to change negligent methods of marketing, sales, and distribution. Until LAP became involved in several landmark civil cases, gun makers and sellers were not held responsible for gun-related deaths and injuries. The logic was that only the individual shooter was responsible. In Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 89 Cal. Rptr.2d. 146 (Cal. App. 1999), LAP helped obtain the first appellate court decision to hold that a gun manufacturer can be held liable for its NEGLI- GENCE in designing and selling a gun for use in crime, and promoting it so that it would APPEAL to individuals with violent intentions. On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered a high rise office building in San Francisco, California, with two semi-automatic ASSAULT WEAPONS manufactured and sold by Navegar, Inc., plus one other gun. He opened fire in the hallways and offices of the lower floors of the building, killing eight people and wounding six others before he shot and killed himself. The survivors and relatives of the deceased brought suit against Navegar, Inc., on three legal theories: COMMON LAW negligence, negligence per se, and STRICT LIABILITY for engaging in an ultra hazardous activity. The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the victims could not sue the gun manufacturer for the actions of the gunman Ferri. The case was brought before the Court of Appeals of California. The co urt reversed on the single issu e of common law negligence. Judge J. Anthony Kline, writing for the court, held that, “Fundamental fairness requires that those who create and profit from COMMERCE in a potentially DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY should be liable for co nduct that unreasonably increases the risk of injury above and beyond that necessarily presented by their enterprise.” The court referred to Navegar’s manufacture and marketing of the TEC-9 semi-automatic weapons used in the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE 103 killings. It found that the gun had no legitimate civilian purpose; it was a weapon designed solely for the efficient killing of large numbers of people. The court also held that the TEC-9 was advertised in a manner to appeal to persons with violent or criminal tendencies. Navegar advertised the TEC-9 as being “tough as your toughest customer,”“paramilitary,” and pro- viding “excellent resistance to fingerprints.” In August 2001, Navegar appealed to the Supreme Court of California to reverse the decision of the APPELLATE court. The court ruled in favor of the gun manufacturer, but declined to address the broader issues concerning negligent business practices of the gun industry. Instead, the court pointed to a state statute that precluded the particular type of claim brought against the gun manufacturer. In response to this ruling, the California Legislature, in Sep- tember 2002, became the first state to repeal a statute that gave special legal IMMUNITY to the gun industry. The repeal was part of a group of far-reaching gun laws that were passed by the California Assembly and signed by then-Gover- nor Gray Davis. In addition to supporting negligence law- suits against gun manufacturers, the Brady Center attempts to ensure that gun legislation is fairly interpreted. In the 2000s, the issue of whether the SECOND AMENDMENT allows indivi- duals to carry firearms came to the forefront as the Supreme Court agreed to review a case that directly involved the application of the Second Amendment. In 2007 the D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed a gun-control law that had been in force in the District of Columbia since the 1970s. This law effectively prohibited most individuals from owning and keeping firearms in their homes. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the law violated the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment establishes rights that apply to individuals (Parker v. District of Colum- bia, 478 F.3d 370 [D.C. Cir. 2007]). The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. Justice ANTONIN SCALIA wrote a lengthy opinion that focus ed heavily on the text of the Second Amendment. Scalia concluded that the Founders had intended for the Sec ond Amendment to apply to individuals, notwith- standing references in the amendment to MILITIA. Because the law prohibited individuals to keep and bear arms without sufficient JUSTIFICATION, Scalia concluded that the law violated the Second Amendment (HELLER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 [2008]). The Brady Center did not criticize the Court’sdecisioninHeller. After the decision in 2008, Brady Center president Paul Helmke wrote, “Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case . While we disagre e with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely con- sistent with the Const itution.” The Brady Center is also integral in shaping new gun policy. Perhaps its biggest success came with the 1993 passage of the Brady Bill, which went into effect on February 28, 1994. The law requires a background check on any individual who attempts to purchase a handgun and a five- day waiting period for handgun purchases. In 1998, the law was extended to included long guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns). In 2001, the Brady Center announced that in the eight years since the law was in effect, gun deaths in the United States dropped from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,874 in 1999, a 27 percent decline. With the election of GEORGE W. BUSH as president in 2002, and the gain of Republican seats in both the House and Senate in 2002, opponents of gun control gained ground. However, Democrats regained control of Con- gress by the end of the decade and some of the steps taken during the Bush administration were challenged. For instance, the Bush admin- istration approved a rule in December 2008 that would allow individuals to carry loaded weap- ons in national parks. When BARACK OBAMA took office in 2009 his administration moved imme- diately to block the rule’s implementation. The Brady Center applauded the move. FURTHER READINGS Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Available online at http://www.bradycampaign.org/ (accessed May 13, 2009). Million Mom March Chapters. Available online at http:// www.millionmommarch.org (accessed May 13, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES District of Columbia v. Heller; Gun Control; Second Amendment. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 104 BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE BRAGG, THOMAS See CONFEDERATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL. BRANCH DAVIDIAN RAID On February 28, 1993, agents from the ALCOHOL, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau (ATF) were met with gunfire when they tried to serve search and arrest warrants on members of the Branch Davidian religious cult at the compound of the apocalyptic sect near Waco, Texas. Four ATF agents and six Davidians died of gunshot wounds that day. A 51-day standoff ensued between more than 100 Davidians inside the compound and 76 federal agents outside the compound. On April 19, 1995, following a 51-day standoff, federal agents raided the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. A fire, later determined to have been set by the Davidians, des troyed the compound and killed 57 of its residents. On the morning of April 19, the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) ordered tanks to break through the compound’s walls, knock open holes, and pour tear gas inside. Around noon fires erupted, burning the compound to the ground. Approximately 80 Branch Davidians died, including their leader, 34-year-old David Koresh. In all, 57 Davidians died in the fire, and 23 died from gunshot wounds. Of these dead, 17 were children, some of whom died from gunshot wounds and some in the fire. Eighteen children and 22 adults left the compound unharmed during the seven-week standoff. On the two-year anniversary of the Waco siege, Ti mothy McVeigh detonated a rental truck full of explosives outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killing 168 people. McVeigh later admitted that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out in part to exact revenge against the federal government for the Branch Davidian raid. McVeigh was eventually convicted on various charges, including first degree MURDER, and sentenced to death. He was executed in June 2001. The Branch Davidian case began in the spring of 1992 when the FBI received informa- tion that Koresh was running a methamphet- amine lab at a religious compound near Waco. While investigating Koresh on possible drug charges, the FBI and ATF learned that the cult leader was possibly breaking federal firearms laws as well, allegedly converting semiautomatic WEAPONS into unlawful machine guns. Federal agents also learned that United Parcel Service (UPS) had been regularly delivering firearms components and explosive materials to the Davidian compound over a period of several years. Using UPS invoices, federal agents tracked serial numbers on weapons as well as explosives that had been delivered to Koresh. One invoice indicated that Koresh had received a shipment containing ammunition magazines for automatic AR-15 rifles, plus a large quantity of powdered aluminum metal, a common ingredient in explosives. In obtaining the search and arrest w arrants, federal authorities provided the issuing MAGIS- TRATE with evidence indicating that Koresh had spent $199,715 in the previous year to buy illegal guns, gun parts, and other components, enough to build a fearsome arsenal. Koresh supporters claimed that the Davidian leader was a gun dealer who had la wfully acquired the weapons. However, after the siege ended, federal authorities found 156 ASSAULT rifles, a heavy machine gun, several boxes of grenades, and grenade launchers, all of which Koresh had obtained and possessed in violation of federal weapons laws. On February 26, 1994, almost a year to the day after the siege began, a federal jury in San Antonio, Texas, acquitted 11 cult members of murder and murder-conspiracy charges in the deaths of the four ATF agents. However, five Davidians were convicted of voluntary MAN- SLAUGHTER , and two were co nvicted on weapons On April 19, 1993, following a 51-day standoff, federal agents raided the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. A fire, later determined to have been set by the Davidians, destroyed the compound and killed 57 of its residents. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION BRANCH DAVIDIAN RAID 105 charges. U.S. District Judge Walter Smith sentenced the defendants to serve 10 to 15 years in prison, after the much stiffer sentences he initially handed down were overturned on APPEAL. Following the tria l the jury foreperson said that the wrong people had been prosecuted. “The federal government was absolutely out of control there,” she said. “[T]he ones who planned the raid and orchestrated it and insisted on carrying out the plan should have been on trial.” The FBI blamed the Davidians for igniting the fire. But on August 25, 1999, the FBI conceded that it had used “pyrotechnic” tear- gas canisters during the siege. The Waco controversy had been gathering momentum ever since a 1997 documentary film, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, presented evidence that the FBI had fired flammable tear gas into the Davidians’ prairie bunker, sometimes known as Mount Carmel. Attorney General JANET RENO denied knowing about the canisters’ flammability but ordered a complete investigation of the raid. On September 9, 1999, Reno named former Repub- lican senator John C. Danforth of Missouri as special counsel to lead the investigation. The FBI told investigators that many of the Davidians who died during the conflagration were victims of mass SUICIDE orchestrated by Koresh. But the nine Davidians who escaped the fire denied that any such suicide took place. They claimed that the FBI’s tank crushed several fuel containers and that a grenade or some other projectile set off the fire. Before the fire started, however, the FBI intercepted troubling conversations coming from unidentified Branch Davidians inside Mount Carmel: “I already poured it. It’s already poured. Don’t pour it all out, we might need some later. So we only light ’em at first if they come in with that tank, right?” Additionally, FBI snipers said they saw a Davidian start a fire and infrared pictures taken from a plane overhead detected three fires burning in separate parts of the compound before the tanks entered. On July 21, 2000, Danforth released his findings. Danforth first reported that he “had a lot of difficulty” getting relevant documents from the FBI. Although he was eventually given the documents he requested, Danforth reported that he felt that “there was a spirit of resis- tance in the FBI” against his investigation. Nonetheless, Danforth’s investigation concluded that the canisters fired by the FBI did not start any of the fires that co nsumed the compound, as all available evidence demonstrated that the canisters landed 75 feet from the main building hours before the fires started. Instead, Danforth placed sole blame for the conflagration on Koresh. After reviewing two million pages of documents, 849 interviews, and thousands of pounds of physical evidence, Danforth said it was clear to him that the only persons who had started any fires at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, were the Davi- dians themselves, probably at the direction of their leader David Koresh. Survivors of the Branch Davidian raid and family members of those who died during the siege filed a series of WRONGFUL DEATH civil lawsuits against the federal government. The suits were subsequently consolidated into one proceeding before Judge Walter Smith, sitting in the U.S. district court at Waco. However, Smith dismissed the lawsuit in September 2000, after the case was tried before an ADVISORY JURY, which ruled against the plaintiffs. Judge Smith accept- ed the verdict and concurred with Danforth ’s findings that federal agents had not used excessive force in their tear-gas assault on the cult’s compound. Smith found that the Davi- dians themselves had started the fire. Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed an appeal; they repre- sented the estates of 14 children who died in the fire, a 15-year-old girl who was badly burned, and three parents whose children died in the blaze. The sole issue on appeal was whether Judge Smith should have recused himself for alleged BIAS against the plaintiffs. In 2003 the Fifth CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals found that plaintiffs had not met their evidentiary burden to gain Judge Smith’s recusal and affirmed the dismissal (Andrade v. Chojnacki,, 338 F.3d 448 [5th Cir. 2003], cert. den. by 2004 U.S. LEXIS 2035, 2036 [2004]). FURTHER READINGS Cole, Michael D. 1999. Siege at Waco: Deadly Inferno. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow. Haldeman, Bonnie, and Catherine Lowman Wessinger. 2007. Memories of the Branch Davidians: the Autobiog- raphy of David Koresh’s Mother. Waco, Tex.: Baylor Univ. Press. Treaner, Nick, ed. 2004. The Waco Standoff. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press. Wright, Stuart A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 106 BRANCH DAVIDIAN RAID CROSS REFERENCES Conspiracy; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Oklahoma City Bombing; Recusal; Wrongful Death. v BRANDEIS, LOUIS DEMBITZ Louis Dembitz Brandeis’s lifelong COMMITMENT to public service and social reform earned him the epithet the People’s Lawyer. His 23 years on the Supreme Court were characterized by a deep respect for civil liberties and by an abiding distrust of centralized power in the hands of business and government. Brandeis was famous for his prodigious intellect and his well-crafted, detailed dissents. He was a man of principle who enhanced the image of the legal profession by living up to his belief that lawyers should possess “the moral courage in the face of financial loss and personal ill-will to stand for right and justice.” Brandeis was born November 13, 1856, in Louisville, Kentucky, the youngest of four children of Adolph Brandeis and Fredericka Dembitz Brandeis. His parents were refined and well-to-do immigrants who left Prague, then part of Bohemia, in 1849. A brilliant student, Brandeis excelled in the public schools in Louis- ville. He also attended the Annen-Realschule, in Dresden, Germany, during his family’s 1873–75 pilgrimage to Europe. Although Brandeis did not have a college degree, he was admitted into Harvard Law School and graduated at the top of his class in 1877. Brandeis had an obvious passion for law and he considered the years at Harvard among the happiest in his life. His ties to the university were strengthened further in 1886 when he became one of the founders of the influential Harvard Law Review. Brandeis and Samuel D. Warren wrote a legendary article, “The Right to Privacy,” in the December 1890 issue of the Review. It previewed Brandeis’s Supreme Court opinions asserting privacy as a constitutionally guaranteed right. After a year of graduate work Brandeis moved to St. Louis in 1878 to begin a law practice. He soon missed the intellect ual sti- mulation of the East Coast and moved back to Boston, where he began a successful law practice with Warren. Their large firm had an impressive clientele and made Brandeis wealthy, although money held little interest for him. As he established himself professionally, Brandeis socialized with Boston’s intellectual elite. In 1891, he married Alice Goldmark, a distant cousin, with whom he had two daughters. Brandeis zealously embraced the ideals of the Progressive movement of the early twentieth century. He proved his dedication to social Louis Brandeis. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Louis Dembitz Brandeis 1856–1941 ❖ ◆◆◆◆◆◆ ◆ 1856 Born, Louisville, Ky 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1877 Graduated top of class from Harvard Law School 1886 Helped found the Harvard Law Review 1890 Co-wrote "The Right to Privacy" with Samuel D. Warren 1908 Muller v. Oregon established the use of the "Brandeis brief" 1914 Other People's Money—and How the Bankers Use It published 1914–18 World War I 1916 Became first Jewish American on U.S. Supreme Court—appointed by President Wilson 1928 Wrote dissent for Olmstead v. United States 1939 Retired from Supreme Court 1941 Died, Washington, D.C. 1939–45 World War II 1948 Brandeis University named in his honor ▼▼ ▼▼ 1875 1850 1900 1925 1950 ❖◆◆ EXPERIENCE SHOULD TEACH US TO BE MOST ON OUR GUARD TO PROTECT LIBERTY WHEN THE GOVERN- MENT ’S PURPOSES ARE BENEFICIENT . —LOUIS BRANDEIS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION BRANDEIS, LOUIS DEMBITZ 107 . Maitland 1884 Note-Book discovered by Professor Vinogradoff of Moscow ▼▼ ▼▼ 122 5 122 5 120 0 120 0 125 0 125 0 18751875 19001900 ◆ Born, England GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 98 BRACTON, HENRY. THE KEY .” —MYRA BRADWELL GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 1 02 BRADWELL, MYRA COLBY When the fair was held in 1893 she chaired the committee on law reform of its AUXILIARY congress. Bradwell. 1993 to 28 ,874 in 1999, a 27 percent decline. With the election of GEORGE W. BUSH as president in 20 02, and the gain of Republican seats in both the House and Senate in 20 02, opponents of gun