Posted on 03/18/2008 7:17:38 PM PDT by kellynla
The fate of the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns — along with the potential validity of other firearm laws across the country — now rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court after justices this morning questioned the constitutionality of the city's stringent gun statutes.
"The court asked a lot of very insightful and interesting questions," said Alan Gura, a lawyer who argued before the nine justices in favor of upholding a lower-court decision that overturned the ban. "We feel very good about how the argument went and look forward to this case being resolved."
The case — District of Columbia v. Heller — is the first time in roughly 70 years that the country's highest court has considered the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and whether it establishes an individual's right to own firearms or only permits their possession by persons associated with a state-regulated militia.
The legal arguments touched on everything from the specific phrasing of the 27-word Second Amendment to the historical context of its adoption and whether or not the District's laws — which prevent most residents from legally keeping handguns in the city and requiring other firearms to be stored bound and disassembled — are "reasonable" restrictions under the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Bump
Just saw the DC Fox station coverage of the SCOTUS hearing, with questins by Roberts and Scalia, but what was most interesting was the observation that Justice Kennedy seemed to be farthest along in his judgment that the DC law is unconstitutional. Kennedy has, of course, been the Court’s ‘swing vote’ so that’s an interesting observation.
I love how the liberals are all but crying over the loss of yet another stone in the wall they love to hide behind.
I suggest the Supreme Court Justices think very carefully before writing their decision. The 1st amendment doesn’t have much meaning without the 2nd.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
I watched it on cspan. Unlike most others who think the pro gun side did great, I thought they did a lousy job. They conceded point after point, agreed that the right can be infringed as long as the infringement is “reasonable”, argued that handguns were not really “arms”, that arguments of “public safety” can supercede the constitution, that trigger locks and storage laws were acceptable, and made weak arguments regarding the relevance of self defense to the 2nd ammendment. I think we will probably come out of this with the status quo.
Has the transcript been released yet?
It does seem to be playing our way...
If the 2A is in fact an individual right, did it only apply to the individuals homes? Or did it also apply to the individuals horses and other conveyances?
If the court strikes down the DC law because it is too restrictive in its requirement that firarms be disassembled, unloaded and locked in the home, then shouldn’t the citizens be able to carry guns while outside the home also?
They had SCOTUS arguments televised? I thought cameras were banned up in there?
The do ban cameras.
“They had SCOTUS arguments televised? I thought cameras were banned up in there?”
Not exactly. They had the audio and were showing pics of those who were talking.
One, that it is an individual right.
Two, that it applies to self defense.
Right - only the cops and street gangs were allowed to have guns ... home owners were not allowed to protect themselves ....
I don’t agree offhand. I listened to it and have the transcript I don’t think there was much in the way of concession.
I think they’ll rule that there is an individual right and that banning all handguns is unreasonable.
But I am careful to get too cocky based only on the oral arguments. History suggests that there isn’t much of a relationship there. It certainly is not predictive.
.
The Constitution does not mean anything without it.
I would not get my hopes up just yet. The Supreme Court are a bunch of elitists, and I missed the part of The Constitution that says we need the courts to tell us what is clearly written as law by our founders.
So Ginzberg was catching some zzzz’s or just banging her head on the desk?
But here, he stated that he considered the "operative clause" to remain separate from a militia purpose. He did not "hide the ball" or simply play devil's advocate like Breyer did. Some people around here were predicting a landslide based on the arguments. I think it incorrect to take arguments from the left as anything other than doomsday scenarios if the lower court is affirmed.
I think this will be a 5-4 decision to affirm. Breyer will dissent separately and give lip service to some weak individual right subject to what amounts to a rational basis test. The 3 other goons will say there is no individual right, and all levels of government are free to regulate as they see fit.
I think the majority opinion will say it is an individual right, and that self defense is a fundamental right as well. It will be conservative in scope, but a landmark opinion nonetheless. I will take it.
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.