Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[pex]

I am listening to the recording of the oral arguments.

I realize that Gura has to play ball to try to reach a consistent and 'reasonable' position so that the Court will take it on (because bad arguments can just get a thing thrown out)...but jesus christ, the guy got owned about as hard as Dellinger. That's nothing to be proud of.

It was certainly astonishing to see him stumble and say how reasonable some of the allegory regulation was. I think I threw up in my mouth a bit during those times.

I never expect the Supreme Court to allow us the ability to use their opinion as a sweeping ability to bring gun rights back to the forefront of our nation where they ought to be, but I never expected 'our' argument to be so weak.

Goodbye 2A, if not at the faster pace.

[Shawn.L]

GOA's Message Goes Nationwide Following Yesterday's Supreme Court Hearing--
USA Today runs GOA editorial Gun Owners of America
E-Mail Alert8001
Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Courtheard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge tothe DC gun ban.
Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are fivevotes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is anindividual right. That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control andprotect gun owners' rights. But as we all know, that's where the battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.
More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorneyfor Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected inthe Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"? To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answersomewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standardlooks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with hisanswer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and SarahBrady.
Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the SecondAmendment. The language doesn't say anything about "reasonable" or"unreasonable;" it simply says the right of the people "shall not beinfringed." It's a shame that even people on "our side" don’t fullyunderstand that.
That's why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted,the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today's editorial.
The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was distinctive. Indeed we do.

GOA's brief says: [T]he argument that "the right of the people" is subject to reasonable regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second Amendment, reading the phrase -- "shall not be infringed" -- as if it read "shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety." "Public safety" is frequently a canard that tyrants hide behind to justifytheir oppressive policies.
Writing in USA Today, our attorneys HerbertTitus and William Olson stated: No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.

For the rest of the editorial:http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/...ew-3.html#more
For the GOA brief, and other important documents and briefs in DC v. Heller:http://www.gunowners.org/hellertb.htm

[larrymeyer]

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Supreme-Court-Reviews-DC-Handgun-Ban/1$40669

Supreme Court Reviews D.C. Handgun Ban
Posted: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Updated: March 19th, 2008 12:47 PM EDT

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer


Click here for transcripts of yesterday's procedures

WASHINGTON --

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The amendment reads: "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."

While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

[cas]

If you look on the right hand side you will find the brief for the United States Conference Of Mayors And Several American Cities

This is Treason for any Mayor who is a member of this organization against us We the People and our states and citizens. Read their brief , they trully believe they can take our guns "legally" .
Disarm the populous and genocide follows by Government. They have stepped over the line once to many times by filing this brief in support of disarmarming We the People. Your Mayor is more than likely a part of this organization

[1iarrowking]

I can't believe I listened to the whole thing. How can the Second Amendment, all two lines of it, be so hard to understand. Did I put my commas in the right places?

[headcase]

What I find hard to believe is this, how not one organization had the balls to actually write a brief that included addressing the real problem with all these bans. In the grand scheme of things it is not whether we should be able to have handguns or long guns, no. It should be about what has happened to our preparedness to deal with tyranny and invasion on an individual citizen basis. We not only should be able to own machine guns, but if we are to be the ultimate line in the sand the 2A has set us to be, we absolutely need them. If the government decides to keep George bush for life, what can we do about it? Line up with our .357's and AR-15's and demand he leave? What if China decides we are their summer home? Do we hold them off with our .308 bolt action 5 shot rifles? I'll go further, when their migs come flying overhead, do we take pot shots with flairs? Homemade model rockets? We should be able to go get trained on a stinger system and be able to buy one. We should be able to go out and buy an XM-8 system. Your crazy you say? That is exactly what the 2A says we have the right to do. What good are Mossberg's and AR-15's against what we would have to face if we needed to defend our liberty? No good, is your answer. Some of you may see this as a crazy rant by a paranoid gun nut, but it is nothing but the truth.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by pex

I realize that Gura has to play ball to try to reach a consistent and 'reasonable' position so that the Court will take it on (because bad arguments can just get a thing thrown out)...but jesus christ, the guy got owned about as hard as Dellinger. That's nothing to be proud of.

It was certainly astonishing to see him stumble and say how reasonable some of the allegory regulation was. I think I threw up in my mouth a bit during those times.

I never expect the Supreme Court to allow us the ability to use their opinion as a sweeping ability to bring gun rights back to the forefront of our nation where they ought to be, but I never expected 'our' argument to be so weak.

I agree. I listened earlier today, and I must also sadly admit that Gura got PWNED. I kept finding myself wishing he would just shut up as he conceded point after point. It got so bad that it seemed as if Justice Scalia, our staunchest ally on this issue, had to jump in at times to bail the guy out. With that said, I believe that Dellinger got owned worse by the Justices than Gura did. Solicitor General Clement had a decent argument, although I wasn't exactly pleased with his position on machine guns and the like. But as I said in previous posts, baby steps. I need to hear this court affirm an individual rights view before anyone goes up against Miller, as Miller has unfortunately held up for a long time.

Originally Posted by headcase

What I find hard to believe is this, how not one organization had the balls to actually write a brief that included addressing the real problem with all these bans. In the grand scheme of things it is not whether we should be able to have handguns or long guns, no. It should be about what has happened to our preparedness to deal with tyranny and invasion on an individual citizen basis. We not only should be able to own machine guns, but if we are to be the ultimate line in the sand the 2A has set us to be, we absolutely need them.

Again, agreed. This was peripherally touched upon in a few of the arguments posed, but it was never concretely stated that an individual's right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the 2A is for the purpose of a militia being prepared to oppose tyranny from any force, be it a foreign entity or our own government.

[chesire17201]

I can't help but wonder what will happen to all the laws that restrict the right to non violent offenders, who are presently banned.

I forsee a few suits challenging those laws as well as unreasonable restrictions.........

[rwilson452]

I really like the part where Dellinger almost is called a lier over his 3 second remark.

[Longshot]

Originally Posted by headcase

What I find hard to believe is this, how not one organization had the balls to actually write a brief that included addressing the real problem with all these bans. In the grand scheme of things it is not whether we should be able to have handguns or long guns, no. It should be about what has happened to our preparedness to deal with tyranny and invasion on an individual citizen basis. We not only should be able to own machine guns, but if we are to be the ultimate line in the sand the 2A has set us to be, we absolutely need them. If the government decides to keep George bush for life, what can we do about it? Line up with our .357's and AR-15's and demand he leave? What if China decides we are their summer home? Do we hold them off with our .308 bolt action 5 shot rifles? I'll go further, when their migs come flying overhead, do we take pot shots with flairs? Homemade model rockets? We should be able to go get trained on a stinger system and be able to buy one. We should be able to go out and buy an XM-8 system. Your crazy you say? That is exactly what the 2A says we have the right to do. What good are Mossberg's and AR-15's against what we would have to face if we needed to defend our liberty? No good, is your answer. Some of you may see this as a crazy rant by a paranoid gun nut, but it is nothing but the truth.

EXACTLY, what I was thinking the whole time.