Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[soup]

The Justices really cut up a lot of what he was saying and kept brining up the fact that their weapons bans pretty much is an all out weapons ban because while they can have a shotgun they aren't allowed to transport it to their house... if they have a permit to get it into their house they still aren't allowed to have it loaded etc... they keep brining up machine guns as well...

At least that was my understanding.

[Pa. Patriot]

Fascinating discussion. Ridiculous at the same time. I am very disappointed by some of the justices saying things such as "right given by 2nd A". As well as the incessant discussion of tangents.

All one has to do to understand the 2nd is read the writings of the founders. So far no mention of that in the testimony.


ETA: es, the justices ripped up the DC attorney. He made an ass of himself. He would answer their questions but when his answer was challenged/scrutinized, he didn't know how to reply. Couple times he tried to talk in circles around the question, but he clearly had no defense against the questions. It was great.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by soup

they keep brining up machine guns as well...

i am also at work and cannot listen. i'm curious...

who keeps bringing up machine guns? and what are they saying about them?

it seems to me that machine guns are tangential at most to this case. just curious how they are factoring in.

[SteveXD]

The Justices made the DC attorney sound like a blundering idiot. It’s hard to follow the audio, but so far sounds positive!

[Major]

Not sure if this has been posted, but in the interest of timliness here it is...

Live feed from C-SPAN

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_...Cat=TV&Code=CS

'Live' Blog Feed

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[rev214]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

All one has to do to understand the 2nd is read the writings of the founders. So far no mention of that in the testimony.

i agree with you 100% on this...

that was the question i have asked during the liveblogging at SCOTUSblog (how much of the writings/quotes/beliefs of the founders was discussed/presented)...

[Pa. Patriot]

It's a disaster.

Justices, solicitor, etc are all in agreement that all rights have leeway for "reasonable restrictions"
They keep referencing "libel" in in regards to the 1st A as a comparison to gun control.
WTF? Libel is a punitive law to punish people who use their speech in a way that harms another. Same as you would be charged for murder for shooting someone .
libel to the 1st is nothing at all like gun control is to the 2nd.

[Republicrat]

The way I see it, this whole thing is already decided and the justices (almost all appointed by Republicans) are being told to rule that there is a right to bear arms but it's subject to "reasonable restrictions".

The NRA seems mysteriously silent on this and after their recent performance on the "mental health" act I expect them to praise this as some sort of perverse victory and claim that this will allow states to give more gun rights.

Of course, perhaps with the exception of a place like Montana almost all states will see more regulations with such a ruling and now they will have this ruling as their premise.

This is going bad but will be spun as a "victory" for gun rights. Just watch. We'll see headlines claiming a "victory" for gun rights or "court upholds guns rights" meanwhile no mention of "reasonable restrictions".

[rev214]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

It's a disaster

i heard more on trigger locks than i did on Madison, Adams, and the Founders...

[Pa. Patriot]

Wow, the DC DA is an amazing POS. About 10% of what he just said is true, the rest is provable BS