Quote:
Originally Posted by Longshot
Agreed, I think Gura should have grown a set and argued the point that a big reason "the" right to bear arms should not be infringed is for the reasons Headcase pointed out. Justice Scalia even hinted in the direction as far as what I understand what she was saying, and he could have capitalized this and really made a strong argument. However I feel he was to busy trying to appease what he thought was going to be acceptable to the court. And I think that is what really got me the most.
|
Agreed. After re-reading the transcripts, it seems that things headed south for Gura as soon as he brought up that machine guns are standard military issue and should be protected. At that point the Justices came down on him HARD, and spent the rest of his time fighting them off by concession instead of defending his position. While I agree that we should have unfettered access to the same weapons as the military, I think specifically mentioning machine guns was overreaching for this case; he could have glanced on this topic indirectly without taking it head-on. As I've said previously, we can't fight for an individual rights view AND expect them to overturn Miller simultaneously. Baby steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
It seems quite obvious to me that we are going to see the DC ban thrown out. I also think that the SCOTUS has no real option but to indicate in their opinion that although the 2A guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, there must be reasonable restrictions placed on that right.
|
Agreed. Despite Gura's argument (or lack thereof), Dellinger was just as bad at defending his position, especially on the issue of self-defense. I also have to believe the majority of the Justices will take the individual rights view based on what was presented and the tone of the Justice's comments. The biggest argument for an individual rights view, and Clement, Gura, and number of the Justices as well mentioned this, is the use of the words "the right of the people" in the 2A. Nowhere else in the Constitution or its amendments is the use of the words "the people" employed when describing what government can or cannot do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
If they actually give an opinion based on what they all to a person know the 2A truly means, there will be such a backlash of overturned laws that the federal government might actually be pushed to do one of two things. Either step back and shrink, or say to hell with it and just ignore the Constitution and grab all of our guns. The SCOTUS would in effect be giving away the power the federal and state governments have fought so carefully and slowly to achieve. I can see it happening all to clearly, and don't think for a minute they don't as well. I hope I expressed that clearly, as I'm dead tired and need to sleep......
|
Yes sir, it was well said, and again I agree. I believe the Justices are concerned that if they interpret the 2A as we all know it should be interpreted, years of regulatory law at both the State and Federal level will have to be wiped off the books in one fell swoop. Entire organizations at the federal level will have no need for existence (i.e. the BATFE). And while I agree that is how it should be, and earnestly hope that someday our liberties in regards to arms are restored, that much change too quickly could likely result in legal chaos, executive chaos, and potential abuses of other rights as the government panics in an attempt to get a handle on a new reality.