Heller case orals on C-SPAN

[1969912 0]

Tuesday morning...

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument For District of Columbia v. Heller

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, C-SPAN will air the Supreme Court oral argument of District of Columbia v. Heller which the Court is scheduled to hear that day. The immediate release of the audio recording of the Court's argument was in response to a request by C-SPAN (Release time is approximately 11:15 A.M.)

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/CSPANDCvHELLER.pdf
--------------

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[warpedskydiver 0]

Outstanding!!!

I will not only watch, but record it on DVR for posterity.

Of course we will have to sit through months of the brady bunch, and their minions in the media telling us how our rights need to be restricted for our own good.

There is also a move afloat to ban body armor for civilians.

[brady bunch-vpc] Nobody has a right to protect themselves from a shooting by wearing body armor, protection of ones self is not an individual right, but rather a collective one[/brady bunch-vpc]

[lawrocket 3]

This case is pretty curious in terms of the bedfellows.

Check out this brief - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/us-heller-brief-1-11-08.pdf

The brief is an amicus brief by the United States Government in favor of the District of Columbia. The brief is pretty interesting. It admits that there is an individual right - and does not give great weight to the prefatory language.

Instead, it argues that the right is subject to reasonable restrictions. In this case, they argue that "ongress can "ban private possession of weapons by persons whom Congress deems unfit."

But then the brief asks for something pretty weird - it sks the court to REMAND the case for determination under a different standard of inquiry. It wants a less categorical standard and wants the appeals court to analyze using a more flexible approach.

I call this the, "I don't want guns banned on my watch. Let the next president deal with it."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I can't believe there's only one thread about this, and only 4 posts.

I would think that all the gun nuts here would be all over this issue by now.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[warpedskydiver 0]

It seems that the justices have a pretty firm handle on the argument.

Justice Bader is pretty obvious in her disdain for firearms, but yet seems to understand that the right shall not be infringed.

Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justive Scalia have pretty much nailed it on the head.

They also seem to understand that given the militia clause of the second, machine gus are of common use, and therefore reasonable as are pistol, and shotguns.

I think DC has had ther "collective" asses handed to them and will be very suprised if the opinion rendered is that which will uphold the ban, and uphold restriction on forearms in contravenence to the U.S. Constitution.

What is also amazing is how knowledgeable of firearms justice Scalia is, somehow I get the idea he is an active firearms enthusiast, or had been.

[warpedskydiver 0]

We are listening very intensely.

BRB

[lawrocket 3]

I don't have the opportunity to listen to it now. But I'd love to set aside some time this weekend. Even better, if a transcript is made openly available I'd love to read it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Go to the SCOTUS blog, or CSPAN

[lawrocket 3]

Ah, yes. Trranscript here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

I can't believe there's only one thread about this, and only 4 posts.

I would think that all the gun nuts here would be all over this issue by now.

Good point!

Many of us are probably lurking/posting here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=857c243be015609cf79b57319973587e&t=260937&page=26

True, that forum is full of gun nuts, but for legal analysis and quality discussions about the actual case, it should be of interest to people on either side

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

This case is pretty curious......

Perhaps bizarre is a better term...

Could be a "I don't want guns banned on my watch. Let the next president deal with it." situation. Can the Court remand the case back to a lower court? It seems that by granting certiorari, they've already made a decision, and would have to reverse their granting of the writ. Has it happened in the past?

I guess it's customary for the SCOTUS to request input from other FedGuv branches. Any idea how much weight their arguments have historically had? Ditto for Amicus Briefs.

Thanks
--------

For those who've not been following, here is the question being examined by the Court:

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I can't believe there's only one thread about this, and only 4 posts.

I would think that all the gun nuts here would be all over this issue by now.

There's not much more to say on the overall case, only on what the justices say. The case has been debated widely at each level of the courts, before, during, and after. I think everyone is ready for a decision already, and hopes it is not a narrow one (like 1939) that will be misconstrued for decades longer.

[crotalus01 0]

Just finished listening to the orals, and here is my prediction:
Ruling is for individual right 5-4 with Kennedy the swing vote.
FOR:
Thomas Kennedy
Alito Scalia Roberts
DISSENTING:
Ginsburg
Stevens
Souter
Breyer

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[rushmc 23]

Other opinions agree with you
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Didn't want to register to read the rest, but I was interested in the lead paragraph.

Quote

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.

If it holds up 5-4 for civil rights, does that affect the election?

If instead it fails, does that outcome affect the election?

Or do both scenarios depend on how the candidates respond to the verdict? Both better start preparing their responses now. I view McCain with great suspicion due to McCain-Feingold and his involvement in the AGS. I don't expect much out of Obama either, so I'd prefer the SC to decide the matter.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Didn't want to register to read the rest, but I was interested in the lead paragraph.

Quote

The US Supreme Court appears ready to rule that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a gun in their home for self-defence, a ruling that could help Republicans in the upcoming presidential election.

If it holds up 5-4 for civil rights, does that affect the election?

If instead it fails, does that outcome affect the election?

Or do both scenarios depend on how the candidates respond to the verdict? Both better start preparing their responses now. I view McCain with great suspicion due to McCain-Feingold and his involvement in the AGS. I don't expect much out of Obama either, so I'd prefer the SC to decide the matter.

All good questions and points to consider. I personally dont know.

My biggest fear in this case is much ambiguity. They can say that one has the right to bear arms and them put out all kinds of opinion that will take years to even bring back to the court. Consider this sent to me by 1969912
http://www.jpfo.org/...nd/vieira-heller.mp3

Takes time to listen to. Very worth it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Kelpdiver,

Like you, I didn't register and read the whole article.

I can't see how a positive (pro-gun) ruling could help the Republicans in the election, but it may help the Democrats. Here's my (il?)logic: It's likely that there are quite a few people who vote Republican almost entirely due to gun rights issues, that is, if they felt their guns were safe they might vote for a Democrat. In my case, gun rights are THE biggest single factor in my voting these days.

If the SC were to make a negative (anti-gun) ruling, perhaps there will be a shift of pro-gun Democrats votes in the Republican direction hoping to limit the damage. Can't see many voters switching from Republican to Democrat. Can't see how the Democratic nominee can benefit.

--------

Opinions?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Kelpdiver,

Like you, I didn't register and read the whole article.

I can't see how a positive (pro-gun) ruling could help the Republicans in the election, but it may help the Democrats. Here's my (il?)logic: It's likely that there are quite a few people who vote Republican almost entirely due to gun rights issues, that is, if they felt their guns were safe they might vote for a Democrat. In my case, gun rights are THE biggest single factor in my voting these days.

If the SC were to make a negative (anti-gun) ruling, perhaps there will be a shift of pro-gun Democrats votes in the Republican direction hoping to limit the damage. Can't see many voters switching from Republican to Democrat. Can't see how the Democratic nominee can benefit.

--------

Opinions?

Interesting point. Not sure I agree with the switching part of your post but, something to consider.

Not sure I agree with the voting part of the article either. I posted for the court observations mainly. (the obervations made by other watching)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

The question that Kelpdiver was interesting - one I had never even thought about. One thing's for sure - the candidates, as quiet as they may be, are most certainly cognizant of the issue and don't want to alienate the ~65% of Americans who believe the 2nd grants an individual right.

Any chance you can post more of the linked article? I'm still digesting the oral argument transcript.

thanks

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

Obama could respond to a pro 2nd verdict with a promise to amend the problem (like the GOP did with judgements affirming gay marriage). However, given recent history (2000), this would likely be an unwise campaign move.

But this has been a very odd elections in terms of the usual truth, so who can say how either side might react to the result. It doesn't take much to push an election with a < 2pt margin like the last two.

[SpeedRacer 1]

It's starting to look like good news for the Bill of Rights:

Justices Appear Skeptical Of D.C.'s Handgun Ban

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; A01

A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's political battles over gun control.

During oral arguments that drew spectators who had waited for days to be in the courtroom, there was far more skepticism among the justices about the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's ban on private handgun possession than defense of it.

Justices balanced the commands of a Constitution written more than 200 years ago with the modern-day questions presented by a gun ban that, it was argued, either prevents the law-abiding from a means of self-protection or keeps more guns off the streets of the nation's capital.

The court seemed swept up in the historic nature of its endeavor, examining a part of the Constitution that most believe has never been clearly defined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. encouraged the lawyers to keep talking well beyond the scheduled 75 minutes.

For all the references to Lord Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights and the Framers' intent, Roberts was succinct in describing how he might view the District's arguments that its gun law is reasonable.

"What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?" he asked Washington lawyer Walter E. Dellinger III, who represented the city.

The clauses of the Second Amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" -- have long vexed constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court's last major ruling on the subject, in 1939, stressed the militia-related aspects of the provision.

Roberts quickly signaled his disagreement. "If it is limited to state militias, why would they say 'the right of the people'?" he asked.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the deciding vote on the divided court, was next. "In my view," he said, "there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

Kennedy expressed, at least three times during the argument, his disbelief that the Framers had not been also concerned about the ability of "the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. also lent support to the individual interpretation. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent during the arguments, as is his custom, but has previously expressed such a view.

From the District's point of view, deciding there is an individual right would be answering only half the question. Dellinger argued that it is reasonable for the city to ban the "uniquely dangerous" handgun, which "can be taken into schools, into buses, into government office buildings, and that is the particular danger it poses in a densely populated urban area."

The D.C. law, passed in 1976 shortly after residents received the right to govern themselves, also requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.

Those challenging the law disagree with the District's contention that it provides residents with access to a firearm for self-defense purposes. Several justices agreed.

"How could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?" Alito asked.

The more liberal justices were most sympathetic to the city. Justice John Paul Stevens repeatedly said that only two states at the time of the framing of the Constitution had individual-right guarantees, and most mentioned the need for guns to provide a "common defense."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that even Lord Blackstone had said gun rights were subject to law and, thus, to restrictions. Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the most aggressive in making the case that local governments may have leeway in restricting gun ownership, based on their own circumstances.

"Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate to say, 'no guns here?' " Breyer asked Alan Gura, the Alexandria-based attorney for security guard Dick Anthony Heller's suit against the city. Before Gura could answer, Scalia interjected, "You want to say yes."

While Gura said it is unreasonable, he conceded that governments could ban ownership of some weapons. Machine guns could be one category, he said, and "plastic" handguns manufactured to escape detection. He said that certain individuals, such as felons, could be banned from gun ownership, and agreed that some licensing of gun ownership would pass constitutional muster.

He hesitated on a question from Stevens: "How about a state university wants to ban students having arms in the dormitory?" "It's something that might be doable, but again, that's so far from what we have here," Gura finally answered. "We have here a ban on all guns, for all people, in all homes, at all times in the nation's capital."

One of the most intriguing aspects of the case has been the position of the Bush administration. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief urged the court to accept the individual-rights view, but he also said the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia striking down the city's law was too broad.

It held that since handguns can be defined as "arms" under the Second Amendment, they cannot be banned. Clement said such "strict scrutiny" could undermine a host of federal gun control legislation, including restrictions on machine guns.

His suggestion that the case be sent back to lower courts for more work enraged gun rights advocates, who felt betrayed, and set off a split in the Bush administration when Vice President Cheney joined a brief rebutting the government's position.

Clement did not back down yesterday. He said it would make a "world of difference" to the viability of federal gun control if government restrictions on gun ownership did not have to meet the strictest constitutional standards.

Roberts said finding the standard by which to review all government gun regulations may not be necessary in deciding the constitutionality of the District's law.

Clement said any ruling narrower than that of the appeals court would be welcome.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, and will be decided before the court adjourns in late June.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

I'm not a gun owner, but this case got me thinking about this and other issues as well.

Things like drug or alcohol prohibition, and prostitution, abortion, etc. as well as guns.

Here is what I thought: Usually, passing a law to ban a thing doesn't make the thing vanish. The thing still exists, but it's illegal.

This principle can be seen over & over again, and yet people continue to believe that a government decree which bans something is like a magic wand that will make the thing go away.

The thing still exists, except now it is solely in the hands of the criminal class, with all of the evil side effects that come with it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I can't believe there's only one thread about this, and only 4 posts.

I would think that all the gun nuts here would be all over this issue by now.

Can someone please define for me the term "gun nut?"

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[wmw999 2,449]

Quote

Can someone please define for me the term "gun nut?"

• When you automatically turn political races into single-issue events, with the second amendment being the single issue.
  
• When you think the second amendment is the most important one
  
• When seeing certain bylines on posts makes your little heart go pitter-pat
  
• If you think that wish that gun buyers would just be truthful about their mental and criminal status is realistic
  

then you might be a gun nut
(apologies to the much wittier Jeff Foxworthy)

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[idrankwhat 0]

I'm just waiting to see what the final ruling is. I'm curious to see how the "strict constructionists" on the court deal with it