DC v. Heller to be heard on Tuesday
DC v. Heller to be heard on Tuesday
Just giving you guys a heads up that Heller is going to be heard on Tuesday. Also, this is one of the rare cases where the Supreme Court is going to go ahead and release the tapes from the arguments early. I will post a link as soon as I have one as to where you can go to listen to the 1Hr 15 Min or so of arguments
FFL/SOT
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
-
ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
-
ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
-
ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Lining up for Guns
March 16, 2008 10:26 PM
The landmark legal battle over the 2nd Amendment is still two days—and two cold nights—away. But people already are waiting in line to get a prized seat in the courtroom for the historic arguments.
Jason McCrory, 23, and Dan Mott, 21, started the line at exactly 5:35 p.m. Sunday. I know, because I happened to be standing out front myself, getting ready to file a report about the case for World News.
“Here’s your story,” a Supreme Court police officer yelled over to me, pointing to a sport utility vehicle that stopped across the street. Out came two guys with a bunch of stuff--rolled up blankets, plastic bags of water--and within minutes they’d found a spot at the foot of the Court’s steps and settled in for the long haul.
Let me tell you, it already was pretty cold and-- as anyone who happened to see my World News piece knows—absurdly windy. But Jason and Dan were unfazed. Jason pulled on a fur hat. Dan wrapped up in a blanket.
They’d come down from Lancaster, Pa. because they have pretty strong opinions about the 2nd Amendment.
“The 2nd Amendment is important to me,” said Jason, who just graduated with a degree in political science from Millersville University and is working construction until he gets a job more suited to the degree. “It’s intended for people to defend themselves.”
Added Dan: “We’re constitutional supporters.”
And that, both said, means they support the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.
Before long, they were talking to a guy from Phoenix who had just gotten into town for the arguments. He and a friend had gone straight to the Court from the airport, and he was planning to camp outside, too.
If you had any doubt this was a big case—if the scores of legal briefs on both sides hadn’t convinced you---there’s more proof, sitting right outside the Courtroom tonight.
Long lines mean big cases that stir deep emotions. And you can be sure that line is going to get longer and longer as it gets closer and closer to 10 a.m. Tuesday.
That’s when the Court, for the first time in 70 years, will confront one of the most vexing constitutional questions: Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms” or does it only protect a state’s right to a “well regulated militia?”
The people in front of the Court tonight adamantly believe it protects an individual’s right, as do most members of Congress, the Bush Administration and—according to the polls—a vast majority of the American people.
But officials in Washington D.C., which bans handguns and has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, argue otherwise. And most of the federal appeals courts have agreed that it only protects a state’s right to assemble a militia. That interpretation means, of course, that the government can ban guns if it wants to.
Tuesday, we’ll hear for the first time from the justices, and their questions to the lawyers may finally give us some sense of how they’re thinking about this case. We sure don’t have much to go on now.
There’s no precedent, no past Supreme Court cases, to guide them. The briefs are voluminous, but take wildly divergent positions. The justices literally will be writing on a blank slate. And people on both sides—those sitting in line outside and those listening at home--think it’s absolutely clear what they should write.
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment protects a state’s right to form a militia.
But which one?
March 16, 2008 10:26 PM
The landmark legal battle over the 2nd Amendment is still two days—and two cold nights—away. But people already are waiting in line to get a prized seat in the courtroom for the historic arguments.
Jason McCrory, 23, and Dan Mott, 21, started the line at exactly 5:35 p.m. Sunday. I know, because I happened to be standing out front myself, getting ready to file a report about the case for World News.
“Here’s your story,” a Supreme Court police officer yelled over to me, pointing to a sport utility vehicle that stopped across the street. Out came two guys with a bunch of stuff--rolled up blankets, plastic bags of water--and within minutes they’d found a spot at the foot of the Court’s steps and settled in for the long haul.
Let me tell you, it already was pretty cold and-- as anyone who happened to see my World News piece knows—absurdly windy. But Jason and Dan were unfazed. Jason pulled on a fur hat. Dan wrapped up in a blanket.
They’d come down from Lancaster, Pa. because they have pretty strong opinions about the 2nd Amendment.
“The 2nd Amendment is important to me,” said Jason, who just graduated with a degree in political science from Millersville University and is working construction until he gets a job more suited to the degree. “It’s intended for people to defend themselves.”
Added Dan: “We’re constitutional supporters.”
And that, both said, means they support the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.
Before long, they were talking to a guy from Phoenix who had just gotten into town for the arguments. He and a friend had gone straight to the Court from the airport, and he was planning to camp outside, too.
If you had any doubt this was a big case—if the scores of legal briefs on both sides hadn’t convinced you---there’s more proof, sitting right outside the Courtroom tonight.
Long lines mean big cases that stir deep emotions. And you can be sure that line is going to get longer and longer as it gets closer and closer to 10 a.m. Tuesday.
That’s when the Court, for the first time in 70 years, will confront one of the most vexing constitutional questions: Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms” or does it only protect a state’s right to a “well regulated militia?”
The people in front of the Court tonight adamantly believe it protects an individual’s right, as do most members of Congress, the Bush Administration and—according to the polls—a vast majority of the American people.
But officials in Washington D.C., which bans handguns and has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, argue otherwise. And most of the federal appeals courts have agreed that it only protects a state’s right to assemble a militia. That interpretation means, of course, that the government can ban guns if it wants to.
Tuesday, we’ll hear for the first time from the justices, and their questions to the lawyers may finally give us some sense of how they’re thinking about this case. We sure don’t have much to go on now.
There’s no precedent, no past Supreme Court cases, to guide them. The briefs are voluminous, but take wildly divergent positions. The justices literally will be writing on a blank slate. And people on both sides—those sitting in line outside and those listening at home--think it’s absolutely clear what they should write.
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment protects a state’s right to form a militia.
But which one?
NFAtalk.org
-
themessenger
- Member
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:24 am
-
ArevaloSOCOM
- Silencertalk Goon Squad
- Posts: 17511
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:22 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Fighting for our right to bear arms
By Robert A. Levy
March 18, 2008
DOES THE Constitution's Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? That is the question the US Supreme Court will consider today in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a Second Amendment challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms.
I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But Washington's law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. Washington, often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.
This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court:
First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms - not a right limited to people engaged in state militia service.
Second, the district's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
An outpouring of modern scholarship - much of it coming from liberal constitutional scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard University and Akhil Amar at Yale University - supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. After all, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution explicitly designed to secure individual rights. And the text of the amendment refers to the "right of the people" - the same people mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is inconceivable that the framers - seeking to provide Americans with a means to resist tyrannical government - would fashion a right that can be exercised only in the context of a militia that is under government control.
But can Washington's ban on all functional firearms coexist with a Second Amendment that secures an individual right? That question might hinge on how rigorously the court reviews the constitutionality of Second Amendment restrictions. If the court believes the Second Amendment meaningfully constrains government, Washington's ban is impermissible.
Even if the court believes that a ban on an entire class of protected weapons can sometimes be justified, it should conclude that regulations like those in Washington are subject to strict judicial scrutiny: government, if challenged, would have to demonstrate that restrictions serve a compelling state interest, will be effective at attaining the desired goal, and do not unnecessarily compromise Second Amendment rights. That three-part standard has considerable teeth, but will not foreclose legitimate gun regulations, such as sensible registration requirements, proficiency testing, instant background checks, bans on massively destructive weapons, and prohibitions on gun ownership by children, mental incompetents, and violent felons.
The court rigorously scrutinizes all regulations that infringe on personal "fundamental" rights - defined as those rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions." Express provisions in the Bill of Rights are certainly fundamental, and the right to keep and bear arms - occasionally a matter of life-and-death significance - is no exception.
If the district's outright ban on all handguns, in all homes, at all times, for all purposes, is determined by the court to pass muster, it will mean that the Supreme Court intends to rubberstamp just about any regulation that a legislature can dream up - no matter whether the government has offered any justification whatsoever, much less a justification that would survive strict scrutiny. That would, in effect, excise the Second Amendment from the Constitution. A right that cannot be enforced is no right at all.
At root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is unconstitutional.
Robert A. Levy is co-counsel to Mr. Heller and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
By Robert A. Levy
March 18, 2008
DOES THE Constitution's Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? That is the question the US Supreme Court will consider today in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a Second Amendment challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms.
I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But Washington's law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. Washington, often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.
This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court:
First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms - not a right limited to people engaged in state militia service.
Second, the district's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
An outpouring of modern scholarship - much of it coming from liberal constitutional scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard University and Akhil Amar at Yale University - supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. After all, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution explicitly designed to secure individual rights. And the text of the amendment refers to the "right of the people" - the same people mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It is inconceivable that the framers - seeking to provide Americans with a means to resist tyrannical government - would fashion a right that can be exercised only in the context of a militia that is under government control.
But can Washington's ban on all functional firearms coexist with a Second Amendment that secures an individual right? That question might hinge on how rigorously the court reviews the constitutionality of Second Amendment restrictions. If the court believes the Second Amendment meaningfully constrains government, Washington's ban is impermissible.
Even if the court believes that a ban on an entire class of protected weapons can sometimes be justified, it should conclude that regulations like those in Washington are subject to strict judicial scrutiny: government, if challenged, would have to demonstrate that restrictions serve a compelling state interest, will be effective at attaining the desired goal, and do not unnecessarily compromise Second Amendment rights. That three-part standard has considerable teeth, but will not foreclose legitimate gun regulations, such as sensible registration requirements, proficiency testing, instant background checks, bans on massively destructive weapons, and prohibitions on gun ownership by children, mental incompetents, and violent felons.
The court rigorously scrutinizes all regulations that infringe on personal "fundamental" rights - defined as those rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions." Express provisions in the Bill of Rights are certainly fundamental, and the right to keep and bear arms - occasionally a matter of life-and-death significance - is no exception.
If the district's outright ban on all handguns, in all homes, at all times, for all purposes, is determined by the court to pass muster, it will mean that the Supreme Court intends to rubberstamp just about any regulation that a legislature can dream up - no matter whether the government has offered any justification whatsoever, much less a justification that would survive strict scrutiny. That would, in effect, excise the Second Amendment from the Constitution. A right that cannot be enforced is no right at all.
At root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is unconstitutional.
Robert A. Levy is co-counsel to Mr. Heller and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
NFAtalk.org
Lyle Denniston who was in the Court today said:
The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.
With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote.
The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.
With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote.
FFL/SOT
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
Audio is on CSPAN now
[b]Sharp Knives and Quiet Guns[/b]
Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com
Inside Sales - Advanced Armament Corp.
770-925-9988 (phone)
770-925-9989 (fax)
[email protected]
www.aacblog.com
www.advanced-armament.com
Solicitor General for the United States just said that "If you were to try and state that this amendment did not apply to machine guns I think you would have a much more difficult argument" [than if you were trying to say that the amendment didn't apply to plastic guns used to avoid metal detectors]
FFL/SOT
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
AAC, KAC, and SWR Dealer
I remember well. I was just wondering were an actual ceramic glock was at. They've done a pretty good job keeping them out of the hands of civilians, and most people believe they never actually existed. So how is this an actual threat? Who actually owns these guns? NO ONE!! Other than maybe some CIA spooks. 
My point is, why the F--k are they talking about them in the SCOTUS when they don't even exist in the public. It's a non issue. Just some liberal bullshit fear tactic crap.
My point is, why the F--k are they talking about them in the SCOTUS when they don't even exist in the public. It's a non issue. Just some liberal bullshit fear tactic crap.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe