Skip to comments.Justices to release audio in guns case (D.C. v. Heller)
Posted on 03/04/2008 6:53:13 PM PST by neverdem
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights. The case from the District of Columbia could resolve whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns and, if so, whether the government may still strictly regulate gun ownership, including a ban on handguns.
The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush.
The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection.
The court records arguments and ordinarily releases them at the end of each term. With television cameras barred from the court and reporters prohibited from using tape recorders in the courtroom, the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws "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."
Souter and Kennedy join the four conservatives in Jan's opinion.
The brief of the Solicitor General basically says it is an individual right, but asked for a lower level of scrutiny than the strict scrutiny typically given to enumerated rights, not to mention a right to abortion which wasn't in the Constitution. It's a question of how they can infringe on an individual right. BTW, the Solicitor General wants the Supreme Court to remand it to a lower court.
Bing, bing, bing! Exactly correct.
The brief from Solicitor General said it probably recognizes an individual right, but they were worried about laws that infringe on machinegun restrictions, 1986 FOPA, and the banning of felons, 1968 GCA, IIRC. It recommended remanding it to a lower court, and not using the strict scrutiny normally applied to enumerated rights.
My fearless prediction:
The SCOTUS rules the 2A is an individual right, but the government can regulate it in some cases ala “shouting fire in a theater”. They will close that this ruling applies only to DC.
The Constitution doesn't give or create rights. It protects them. As to the second part of the question, what part of shall not be "infringed" is so hard to understand?
No, they are hearing oral arguments for a portion of a single day. It'll be a couple of months, at least, before they release a decision.
Same here in Southern Ohio!
A popular Bumper sticker around here is: "The Government can have my guns, when I run out of ammo!"
They could, but they'd have to rule that the right was not a fundamental one, essential to ordered liberty. But if they do that, they would also be likely to allow some or all of the DC restrictions.
Well not quite, according to the site of Heller's attorney, the Texas AG will take 10 minutes out of the Respondent's (Heller's) allotment of 30 minutes. The US SG will get his own short time.
Now you're right that's hardly fair, but both DC and Heller have agreed to it.
Of course not!!! The current POTUS has had nothing at all to do with appointing conservative judges to the SCOTUS.
Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual's right to own a firearm=Not Bush's Fault!
My prediction is that this case will turn out to be nothing. They will decide that the 2nd amendment does guarantee an individual’s rights, but that those rights are also subject to “reasonable restrictions”. That way they don’t really have to make a decision.
How do you reconcile reasonable restrictions with a right that shall not be infringed? That will be a neat trick without trashing "Miller," IMHO.
In the Founders' time, the Bill of Rights was understood to restrict the powers of the federal government. It wasn't applied wholesale to the states until the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation.
Well, it's obvious that they will never take it literally. That would give us the right to own our own WMD's if we so chose. One set of reasonable restrictions that I don't think anyone would object to would be a prohibition on strategic weapons, (ICBM's, bombers, etc...). While these are arms, they are not weapons that one would associate with a militia. Personally, I would draw the line at explosive ordinance and crew served weapons, but it's very hard to argue that those aren't legitimate militia weapons as well.
So common sense dictates that if they find an individual right they will have to draw the line somewhere or permit the government to do it for them and somehow I doubt they will be nearly as lenient as I would be.
I am with you on the 6-3 or 7-2 in our favor. Lawrence Tribe has given the libs on the court some covering fire.
Some of us have bayonets.
The gun-banners are unarmed, so their warpath is sprinkled with rose petals. I wouldn't worry about 'em.
When the SHTF I'm going to Texas, find humblegunner & friends, and help water that tree of Liberty.
I don’t know about you, but I’d draw the line at WMD. If some guy wants to put 8 Brownings in his P-51 Mustang, I don’t see a reason he can’t do it. If you own a larger than two-seat helo, I don’t see a reason you can’t mount an M60 in it.
Mortars, rockets, M203, GE cannons, all protected under the Second Amendment.
Come on down, and welcome!
We have spare guns, 4WD's and ATV's.
In favor of ... what? An individual right? The DC Circuit Court already ruled that. That the laws in DC are unconstitutional? The DC Circuit Court already ruled that.
Whereabouts in Texas are you “at”?
What date was that written?
If SCOTUS upholds a fundamental individual right, then jurisdictions like Chicago and other places in Illinois that ban handguns will be challenged. But even with strict scrutiny, I wonder if the handgun bans can be overturned.
That animation on your page is incredibly funny.
That would be pretty impressive. Even North American only installed 6.
Early-to-mid ‘90s, I think. I first ran into it in the late 1990s.
The line to draw is most easily around the definitions of “arms” versus other kinds of weapons and “ordnance”. I think it is reasonable to say that the founders used the word “arms” intentionally. Not “weapons” or some such. “Arms” can be understood to mean the sort of weapons that are carried and used by a single soldier. It wouldn’t include cannon or heavy weapons, but it would include whatever is typically carried by an infantryman.
Not sure how they’d have looked at grenades, though. I might guess that the founders wouldn’t consider them arms. But I’m willing to negotiate.
From a practical standpoint there simply will be certain “reasonable” restrictions however. Prisoners *in prison* do not have a right to arms. Persons certified as dangerously insane should be denied arms, as well as liberty. I’m OK with convicted felons being denied as long as there is a process for reinstatement. Some restrictions are more reasonable than others. Anything beyond these should be fought, and aggressively.
Nomatter what the court says, I think it is doubtful that we’ll get machine guns back, even though I think we should under the 2nd amendment. We’ll likely just have to live with that.
'Way out in the boonies about 35 miles northeast of Houston.
Technically, I'm a part of the thriving metropolis of Huffman, population 312.
I love it.
I actually did say 6 some time ago. Then somebody here said they put in 8. So I said that.
How scary that the tone it rings at is truer now than it was when it was written.
To the best of my recollection, the P-47 was the only fighter we built with 8.
Are you the guy who hosts the “Texas Cowboy Memorial Shoot”?
Rereading it, it looks like it was written in late 1998 or 1999.
Eaker & TheMom are usually in charge of the event.
This year it's in Corpus.. there is a thread up, I'll find a link.
I think that's why they took the case. The DC Circuit Court ruled it a fundamental right, and I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will change that.
If I was Clarence Thomas, I would use this opportunity to ask my first question. Of course, that’s probably why I’m not a Supreme Court Justice and he is.
What do you think the Supreme Court will rule?
The second amendment was written to secure the individual right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated state Militia from federal infringement. If Congress refused to arm the Militias (under Article I, Section 8), Congress could not stop individuals from arming themselves to form a well regulated state Militia.
"Arms" are defined by each state. How individuals are to keep and bear them is up to each state. If Congress infinges on any of these areas, the state has standing to challenge the law in federal court.
Simple. Clean. No guesswork. No restrictions. No justifications.
When the second amendment is interpreted correctly.
The individual right to keep and bear arms outside of a Militia is protected by state constitutions. The State Supreme Court will define "arms", "keep" and "bear" for the citizens of that particular state based on their interpretation of the state constitution.
This year it's in Corpus.. there is a thread up, I'll find a link.
Here ya go . . . http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1853692/posts
Either they'll rule along the limited lines of what Nachoman said in post #54 or they'll rule Militia only. If they go with Circuit Court case precedent, it will be the latter.
Plus, the Miller decision doesn't help matters. Here you've got the U.S. Supreme Court implying that only Militia-type weapons are protected by the second amendment. Now, we can argue all day what exactly those weapons are, but it seems odd that the court would be saying that only military weapons are protected .... for civilian use.
Why make a distinction? Why not just say "all weapons". Criminy -- if you're protecting the most destructive of all weapons, why leave out a few?
There is a simple answer, of course. And that is that the second amendment only protects Militia-type weapons for those individuals in a Militia. But nobody wants to hear that. So just pretend I didn't say it.
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights... The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush. The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection... the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.Thanks neverdem.
Who said anything about using AR-15s against tanks ? The typical government functionary drives a 4 door sedan,same goes for the party flunkies ,MSM propagandist,various other traitors to the Constitution.
Those are the targets combined with acts of sabotage with regard to the lights staying on & the phones working cause a great deal of trouble for a political class .
The greatest weapon however isn’t a gun but well thought & extremely well executed propaganda/public education campaign.
Wow, that Davy Crockett was a full on American superman. Just helped my 7 year old with a book report on him and was ASTONISHED at how much the man accomplished, with almost no education.
Dude knew his way around a rifle also - rivals TR as America's most noteworthy rifleman.
Studying his life should be mandatory reading for every grade school kid in America, but sadly most know more about Rosa Parks.
In response to the BATFE coming to every gun dealer and getting the records then going to every gun owner...
Well, there are 2300 BATFE agents and about 100 million gun owners. Do the math. Who is more likely to win that firefight? And believe me, Should SCOTUS rule the wrong way on this one, all hell is going to break loose.
SCOTUS is very aware that this is the most pivotal case in US history. I predict incorporation and a strong ruling in our favor with a 6-3 split.
A lot of the cannon used during the Revolution were privately owned. Also, we had private ARMED merchantmen which plied the seas and were one of the bases for the letters of marque and reprisal clause. Big guns, crew-served weapons, WERE and ARE still privately owned and are covered under the second amendment.