Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[billamj]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Thank you.

I have to add that I am a bit sickened after listening to the arguments.
I really have lost what little respect I had for the SCOTUS aftter listening to them dance around the REAL ISSUE like a bunch of relatives at Thanksgiving dinner ignoring the hooker your brother brought brought with him.
Every single time the real issue was brought up the subject was changed and there was little cognitive order to the proceeding. It was unprofessional on an obscene level.

My prediction is that the court will not address the individual right aspect and once again hand down a ruling only related to "reasonable" restrictions. Whatever those are.

Ginsburg was my absolute favorite though. She kept asking the pro-2A attys questions and then kept talking over them and not giving them a chance to answer. WTF lady? Give the man a chance to speak. On the other hand the Bush justices did a freaking stand up job of making the anti lawyers look pretty dumb.

[knight0334]

I caught the tail end of things here at work. Figured a way to pipe the web-cast in through the network.

Some sounded very promising, while other moments sounded vary dark.

One thing that disturbed me most was the saying that the 2A "gave us the right". Where as it is written - it protects an existing right. The USC doesn't give us people any rights, it gives the US government and state government powers, and protects certain rights which are reserved to the states and the people.

[ChamberedRound]

Now that I've read a few of these posts, I'm not so sure if I should listen. I'll probably wind up having a heart attack from yelling at the computer.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Now that I've read a few of these posts, I'm not so sure if I should listen. I'll probably wind up having a heart attack from yelling at the computer.

Its not that bad really.. there were many more good moments than bad in my opinion. its worth the bandwidth.

[NineseveN]

See the attached transcript if you want to read the arguments.

[Pa. Patriot]

Is the SAF smoking crack?

They must have been hearing only what they wanted to hear, and then only after applying some serious inter[pretation...

NEWS RELEASE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens.

“We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.”

Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.”

“While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.

“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”

-END-

[SuperMoose]

Oral arguments are only intended to clarify questions Justices have on the briefs. Typically their minds are already made up and oral argument does very little to persuade the Justice one way or another. Also if you look at Supreme Court opinions historically the best way to predict how the Court is going to rule is to look at the political party the Justices identify themselves with. As for the Justices interupting the attorneys, thats the way the Court works, has worked, and will continue to work. The Justices don't care about what prepared argument the attorney had, they have questions. The questions are more or less for clarification and making a point to other Justices. That is how they communicate to one another. So while it may seem rude or whatever you want to call it that is the way the Court works. It was interesting how machine guns kept coming up in the arguments.

The press conference after was absurd and made my blood boil. The mayor of Washington, D.C. is an ass at best. The chief of police made me laugh with her comment of "When I entered the Court, even I, the Chief of Police of Washington, D.C., had to remove my firearm, and I'm ok with that" or something very similiar to that. Well I don't know what she was expecting but all I can say is fucking duh...Of Course you had to remove your firearm, its the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see the opinion when it is released and what legal implications it will have and whether they will only be applicable to the case at bar or more sweeping regulations.

Maybe I should purchase that AR sooner rather than later.

[SteveXD]

When the mayor said that they violent crime rate was down since the ban I wanted to smash my keyboard... How can he say that with a straight face!!!

[Shawn.L]

Originally Posted by SuperMoose

Maybe I should purchase that AR sooner rather than later.

[ALS]

Supreme Court Majority Appears To Back Gun Rights

A majority of the Supreme Court today seemed to clearly indicate that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to possess a firearm and several justices appeared skeptical about whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban could be considered a reasonable restriction on that right.


washingtonpost