Posted on 03/02/2010 8:14:09 AM PST by ctdonath2
Oral arguments in Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago have wrapped up. This thread is for gathering breaking news, transcripts, and commentary.
There is a big difference between regulation and not allowing to have.
Agree. 5-4. After Heller, lots of speculation that one or two extra justices were picked up — based on questioning. An armed population is anathema to the cause of dominant gov.
Expect language that will allow more and more revisits and clarification. It will be vague. Stuff like no “unreasonable” rules, etc.
By the time this has another Supreme Court hearing, the dollar will have evaporated and their won’t be any reason to challenge established fact. I think.
One or the other wrote the Heller decision and the opinion established a foundation for "reasonable" restrictions and even cited specific instances. The country could have done without that.
There was someone on Laura Ingraham’s show a half hour ago who sounded very hopeful (attorney who was part of it, I think)
“...Any plaintiff should be able to point at the 2ndA, the judges read “shall not be infringed”, and rule accordingly...”
CT, You would be correct if we didn’t live in Bizzaro World.
They’re trying to please everyone one way or another. And, unfortunately, the man who tries to be all things to all people is ultimately nothing to anyone...
“Shall Not Be Infringed” is pretty strong, clear and bright to most people. But THESE bright shining lights of genius and towering intellect on the SCOTUSE just can’t bring themselves to understand that one simple phrase. Four simple words, stated succinctly. It’s the ONLY amendment in the BOR worded that way.
Makes a body wonder if they’re ALL part of one giant conspiracy to reduce us to subservient helplessness...it surely does...
Scalia wrote Heller.
He did not say what the standard of review was (why not? I have no idea.), but he did say that the standard of review was more strict than reasonableness.
A good summary of Heller may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
(Yea, I know it’s Wiki – but the summary seems fair to me.)
“Why,” Scalia asked Gura, “are you asking us to overrule 140 years of law….unless yhou are bucking for some place on some law school faculty.” The Justice said the “privileges or immunities” argument was “the darling of the professoraet” but wondered why Gura would “undertake that burden.” And Scalia noted that the “due process” clause — an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on other occasions– was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and added: “Even I have acquisced in that.” Gura somewhat meekly said “we would be extremely happy:” if the Court used the “due process” clause to extend the Second Amendment’s reach.
Link to the audio will probably be available tomorrow. www.scotusblog.com has been overwhelmed at the moment, and their bloggers said that the court will provide audio tomorrow (and they will have the link).
Sounds like some good news and some not so good news.
Good news: looks like it will probably be incorporated
Bad news: it will probably be the through the due process clause of the 14th amendment and not the privileges and immunities clause. Just means, that to gain more access to our right, we’ll have to sue. Equal and due process, hopefully will help out our friends where their rights are infringed with bearing, and not just keeping, their arms (like my home state here in MD where they get to decide through no real standard).
Well, “You can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater” kinds of things make some sense. I can see no shooting deer in your front yard if you live in a subdivision, for example.
The difference is that the classical definition of “regulation” regarded IMPROVING usage, not inhibiting. The Militia Act of 1792 “regulated” arms by _requiring_ all able-bodied men own _at_minimum_ equivalent equipment, and registered owners not as a matter of prohibition but as a matter of knowing who could be called on for defense of the state.
I have got to hear this one. Really. Please explain why you would not have to sue if the court radically rewrote the P&I Clause, but you would have to sue if the Court uses the Due Process Clause?
What does the P&I Clause give you that the Due Process Clause does not?
No audio. The judges did not allow recording this one. Transcript only.
Justice Antonin Scalia piled on by asking Gura why he’d take this more difficult path “unless you’re bucking for some place on a law school faculty.” The privileges or immunities clause, Scalia added sarcastically, has become the “darling of the professoriate.” Justice Stephen Breyer also seemed to opt for caution, asking Gura questions about the implications of using a new part of the Constitution to apply the Second Amendment to states.
The justices seemed almost to sigh in relief when former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the National Rifle Association on the same side as Gura, rose to reassure the justices that using the due process clause was a “remarkably straightforward” way to apply the Second Amendment that would not involve upsetting precedent.
Does anyone understand why so many judges and professors care about the difference between the due process and the P&I approach? Does it matter when the answer is the same? Is the answer the same? I can’t seem to put my finger on it; but of course I do not have the time to research all this as thoroughly as the experts.
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.