Supreme Court Will Hear D.C. Guns Case

[Longshot]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

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.



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.

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.

JUSTICE SCALIA: "I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[sjl127]

The more I review the arguments, peruse the briefs, and read the news articles, I'm afraid to comment that this is the beginning of the end of our second amendment.

[headcase]

One more and I'm done for the day...

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. 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......

[ChamberedRound]

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.

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.

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.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

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.



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.



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.

That was exactly what I meant to convey, a bit clearer than mine. Well said

[wewo]

dont get overly disturbed by the oral argument. The Courts routinely beat up on the attys for both sides, it helps them test and reaffirm their own positions. Usually the Judges' mind is made up before the argument is even heard, so even if you believe Guru wimped out, it is unlikely to effect the decision. I will say that from the questions it appears (appears being the key word here) that the Justices will strike the D.C. Law as unconstitutional. We must await the decision!

[widearea]

It sounds like the brady bunch is scared of the outcome..here is an email i got today.


-------------------------------------------

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller
The Most Significant Second Amendment Case in the Nation's History
Dear Jonathan,


As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and many others. Please help us defend these laws by making as generous a contribution as you can today to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

As the Court deliberates over the next few months, your support is critical. We need to be prepared for the outcome, whatever that might be. This is no time to play wait-and-see.

A lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. This position got a lot of attention in Tuesday's arguments.

However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support from all sides for responsible regulation concerning guns. We need to stress this position to the American public before and after the decision is made in late June.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

One thing is certain — we have the support of many Americans like you on our side. In a recent Washington Post poll, a solid majority of Americans indicated they would support a law for their communities similar to the one in question in the Supreme Court case.

While I was in the courtroom, Brady staff and activists were at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by — school children, government workers, and tourists.

We will not wait for the Justices' ruling in this case. We are, and will continue to be, on the offensive. Our voices — your voices — are making a difference!

Now is the time to contribute to the Brady Center as we get ready during the next few months for all the vital next steps that will follow the Court's historic decision.

Please give generously today.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. Click here to see my remarks at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court following the oral argument. But first, please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to the Brady Center.



You can also mail a check to:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005


Click here to update your e-mail preferences.

[sjl127]

What I'm concerned as this case setting a precedent for further regulation, since this was brought up on the oral argument transcript:

Page 77, lines 2 to 13.

Look it up.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by widearea

It sounds like the brady bunch is scared of the outcome..here is an email i got today.

I don't think the BB leadership are scared at all. Rather, they're just playing the same game as the NRA: to scare the members so they can use that fear as a revenue generator.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by sjl127

What I'm concerned as this case setting a precedent for further regulation, since this was brought up on the oral argument transcript:

Page 77, lines 2 to 13.

Look it up.

While I agree that Gura should not have conceded this point, IMHO his backpedaling didn't state anything which doesn't already exist in federal law. His statements just re-affirm Miller, that reasonable restrictions are valid. I don't believe that these statements are going to provide any more justification to further regulate firearms than Miller already provides.