Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[doug]

Transcript of oral arguments are now available for download from the scotus website

[sjl127]

I just read the whole transcript, and from what I gather, I predict a high capacity magazine ban law that will hit certain areas.

MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that.

[sjl127]

This one scares me:

JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?
MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.

[pitt45GAP]

After reading the whole transcript it would seem to me that its already obvious that the lower courts decision will be upheld, and handguns will be allowed.

laws that may be overthrown in the future:
Automatic Gunban of 1986
all states not issuing a shall issue permit
all lock laws
the states that ban "assault rifles"

I would bet before 2015 we will be able to purchase fully auto weapons under the 1934 NFA that were made any time vs pre 86.

[Agent Smith]

Originally Posted by pitt45GAP

After reading the whole transcript it would seem to me that its already obvious that the lower courts decision will be upheld, and handguns will be allowed.

laws that may be overthrown in the future:
Automatic Gunban of 1986
all states not issuing a shall issue permit
all lock laws
the states that ban "assault rifles"

I would bet before 2015 we will be able to purchase fully auto weapons under the 1934 NFA that were made any time vs pre 86.

That's a long shot, but I sure hope that happens.

[Agent Smith]

The NRA's statement:

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in D.C. Gun Ban Case

Fairfax, Va.-Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] 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."

The case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the District of Columbia, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the city's gun bans unconstitutional. The panel's decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals decision--consistent with the views of the Framers of the Bill of Rights, respected legal commentators of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), numerous court decisions of the 19th century, the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939), the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today-concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

In today's argument, the Justices aggressively questioned advocates for all sides, including Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging D.C.'s law.

While it would be a mistake to predict the outcome of a case from questions at oral argument, some justices' questions clearly suggested where they stand-as when Chief Justice John Roberts, questioning the District's Dellinger, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp . pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock. Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that D.C. actually supports citizens having functional firearms for defense.

Justices extensively questioned all three attorneys on the meaning and effect of the Second Amendment's "militia clause," with Dellinger taking the extreme position that unless a state "had attributes of [a state] militia contrary to a Federal law," the Second Amendment would have no effect as a restraint on legislation. Several justices seemed to disagree strongly with that view, with Justice Antonin Scalia noting that even if the militia clause describes the purpose of the Second Amendment, it's not unusual for a law to be written more broadly than necessary for its main purpose.

Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the attorneys very actively, especially on the importance of self-defense in the Founding era. Justice Kennedy suggested that even the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision-which gun control advocates have often wrongly cited as protecting only a "collective" right-was "deficient" and may not have addressed the "interests that must have been foremost in the Framers' minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the people who needed them for their defense."

Plaintiffs' attorney Gura-in addition to responding to many hypothetical questions-noted that the Second Amendment was clearly derived from common law rights described by Blackstone and other 18th Century commentators. Although the militia clause "gives us some guide post as to how we look at the Second Amendment," Gura said, "it's not the exclusive purpose of the Second Amendment."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox (who both attended the arguments) commented, "Washington, D.C.'s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.'s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down."

Amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in support of the Court of Appeals' decision included those by the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund; Vice-President Dick Cheney (in his capacity as President of the Senate) and Members of Congress; the state attorneys general; and noted Second Amendment scholars. All the briefs in the case are available at www.nraila.org/heller.

[Slotimus]

Originally Posted by pitt45GAP

After reading the whole transcript it would seem to me that its already obvious that the lower courts decision will be upheld, and handguns will be allowed.

laws that may be overthrown in the future:
Automatic Gunban of 1986
all states not issuing a shall issue permit
all lock laws
the states that ban "assault rifles"

I would bet before 2015 we will be able to purchase fully auto weapons under the 1934 NFA that were made any time vs pre 86.

I doubt it. No matter how much fighting we do, I don't think it will ever be easy to buy an automatic.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by pitt45GAP

After reading the whole transcript it would seem to me that its already obvious that the lower courts decision will be upheld, and handguns will be allowed.

Yes, but the real issue to the rest of the country isn't whether or not the lower court's decision is upheld. The real issue, and why this case was "tailor made" to come before the court, was to get a ruling on whether or not the 2A secures an INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms. That's what I'm looking for from this court.

As for the NFA, GCA, etc., I say one step at a time. Let's get the court to rule that the 2A is an individual right first, then we can work on other unconstitutional regulation that's been passed in the last 100 years or so. If they can't even decide the above, then there's NO WAY automatics will be unregulated.

[sgser]

After listening to the questions asked, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court were to hear a case to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They could probably settle that question to their own satisfaction.

I know the subtleties and nuances of legal language are too arcane for my untrained mind but after hearing some of the questions asked in Heller I can begin to understand how they arrived at their tortuous decision in Kelo.

I would be curious as to how the legally astute members of this forum would opine.

[pitt45GAP]

I think in my late post last night, I may have been hasty.

Obviously the ruling in this case will decide the question "Is the 2nd ammendment a protected individual right"

The answer to that question is a fairly obvious one, yes.
Based on the questioning of the more "texturist justices" (Scalia, Alito and Roberts) it seems that will be a foregone conclusion with Justice Kennedy and Thomas siding with those 3.

In as much as reasonable regulation of the use of a right, in the terms of the questions asked, it opens up possible repealment of the 1986 ban if brought before the court. - Can a person be well trained in modern arms without access to modern arms? ie automatic weapons? I have no qualms about NFA 1934 - to me, although I am a deep seeded libertarian, it seems reasonable to restrict those to people in the same way in which i cannot drive a semi trailer truck with out a CDL. the 1986 law however is a ban over time as the auto sears wear out and are unable to be replaced.

What this decision will do, is force lower courts to use "Heller" as the standing precedent on bans of types of weapons, and the ability to bear them. For example as a formal CA resident, I was unable to purchase so called "assault rifles" or any gun with a magazine larger than 10 rounds. It would seem WHEN Heller is upheld and defined as an individua right that can only be reasonably regulated in two ways: One my right to personal arms for defense, and hunting, and my right to personal arms for training in order to be able to serve the militia. CA law would have to be thrown out as an AR 15 a rifle that the US has been using for almost 40 years is banned, I cannot be well trained in the use of a common "militia" arm by using a non military style arm.

what I see heller do in a purely legal context is actually Rule on the question at hand as saying "Individuals may not have their right to firearms be infringed with reasonable regulation" - it seems the reasonableness based on the transcript was comparing standard martail arms as a reasonable place to go.

I am just excited that for once the Government may not be able to overstep their authority and prevent us from our arms. I still dont see how there is even an argument here in purely constitutional form. 2A has 2 rights, one operator, and one inherent implication: The people have a right to own arms privately, they have a right to carry and bear such arms, the reason for this is to be well trained to join the militia in case of foreign invasion or domestic tyranny and the implcation of self protection.

Its amazing we need 9 IVY league educated judges to understand this ammendment when its so clearly explained in the federalist papers.