to vote REPUBLICAN!
Posted on 3/18/2008, 8:49:21 PM by Halo-JM
NEWS RELEASE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says.
(Excerpt) Read more at prnewswire.com ...
BELLEVUE, WA – Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.
“We are confident,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “that the high court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens.
“We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact,” he continued. “Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Mr. Gura’s remarks left the justices with a clear understanding why the District’s handgun ban is unconstitutional.”
Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, “won the oral argument.”
“While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law and regulation on the books,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipate that the court will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.
“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”
Nice, but oral arguments mean little.
YESSSSS!!!!
Let’s hope. I’m glad to hear that the Solicitor General’s oral arguments were indeed an improvement over that lousy written brief presented earlier. Sounds like the administration got the message.
Whoa. Don’t count your strict constructionist chickens...
Correct, optimism is great, but time has taught me to be a realist. That being said, so far so good.
“That being said, so far so good.”
Agreed.
I don't know about that. Clement made very clear that the United States rejects a strict scrutiny standard.
I sure hope so. I guess we'll know in June.
Winning this would be HUGE for the good guys. We need to get the government off of our backs and this would be a great start in the right direction.
“Today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.”
Way to jinx the whole thing genius.
The judges can just as easily play devil's advocate without showing their true beliefs. Beware of perceived expressions of support, especially by those not normally in agreement with the conservative members. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
I expect a ruling that affirms the right of citizens to own weapons to defend themselves. That’s great. I also expect an ‘out’ to be provided so government entities can impose ‘reasoned’ restrictions. That’s where we lose.
If carve outs are recognized by the court, then carve-outs will essentially become the death of our gun rights.
We could wind up with a situation where one shotgun per family would be the only weapon a citizen could own. This would meet the constituional right to own, but severely damage and limit that right, an overall nearly universal destruction of our right to self-defense in all but a limited number of situations.
Here’s to hoping I’m wrong.
Does it look like I’ve pretty much lost confidence/trust in our federal government? Good.
The only issue left remaining is to what degree restrictions can be placed for very specific purposes ie airlines, courtrooms, etc. But no blanket restrictions on type, keep & bear.
Boy! This could be a great victory!
Nothing has been ‘won’ as yet. Lets wait for the decision.
This is a critical case for The Good Guys; fingers crossed ‘til June.
I don’t have as much optimism.
The court will try to rule as narrowly as possible in order not to invalidate the gun control laws throughout the USA.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.