Last edited:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Best Source for DC vs. Heller Updates and links
- Thread starter Bruce for NH State Rep
- Start date
- Status
I've been listening to C-SPAN since 8:00 AM (even though the arguments won't begin until 10:00 ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
).
http://www.c-span.org/Default.aspx
Audio tapes of the case should be available immediately after the court adjourns.
The media briefing for the case has an excellent summary and background of the case and arguments to be presented.
).http://www.c-span.org/Default.aspx
Audio tapes of the case should be available immediately after the court adjourns.
The media briefing for the case has an excellent summary and background of the case and arguments to be presented.
Media reports say a decision is likely by the end of June.
LoginName beat me to it by mere seconds
LoginName beat me to it by mere seconds
From the Globe today...wow
Can't believe the Globe would print this...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...08/03/18/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.
more stories like this
Court reiterates $82.6M award for woman
Iraq court reverses US citizen's conviction
WTC bomber claims Sept. 11 retaliation
Photo tech complicates child-porn cases
High court sides with Medtronic
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.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
Can't believe the Globe would print this...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...08/03/18/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.
more stories like this
Court reiterates $82.6M award for woman
Iraq court reverses US citizen's conviction
WTC bomber claims Sept. 11 retaliation
Photo tech complicates child-porn cases
High court sides with Medtronic
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.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
Listening to the machine gun discussion. Dellinger should never have brought it up - one justice said he didn't think that machine guns were commonly owned, and asked how many machine guns are out there, and Dellinger had to answer, "About 100,000. [GULP!]"
Should I be getting ready to order my champagne?
Wishful thinking.
Should I be getting ready to order my champagne?
Wishful thinking.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,393
- Likes
- 8,238
Interesting that none of the discussions have ever even come close to talking about the fact that the 2nd was a reminder that it is by an armed public that people reamin free from a tyrannical government.
Listen to this when you get a spare minute.http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/vieira-heller.mp3 Makes you think.
Thanks Mainer, I'll check it out now.
Watch Live: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Live Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/the-guns-case-live-blog/
Watch Live: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Live Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/the-guns-case-live-blog/
pdm
NES Member
C-SPAN Highlights
Tonight:
* U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: D.C. v. Heller (8pm)
Tonight:
* U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: D.C. v. Heller (8pm)
Most of it was pretty predictable. I expected Kennedy to come down fairly clearly on the individual right side, though that still leaves open the question of review standard. Bryer pretty much conceded that the opinion will be in favor of an individual right by his eagerness to stretch the definition of "reasonable regulation" to essentially anything that a legislature wants. I did get rather pissed at everyone's seeming willingness to throw machine guns and those mythical invisible plastic guns under the bus. The invention of a "dual" standard of militia utility and common civilian availability was particularly disingenuous, and I found Gura's willingness to run with it extremely disappointing. As was done with machine guns, you simply single out one type of gun for special taxation and regulatory requirements, gradually tighten those up and then wake up one morning to discover that that type of gun is no longer commonly owned by civilians. Thus you're completely free to ban it outright, since it's no longer protected under that theory of the 2nd Amendment. You're then free to move that "special" treatment on to your next target. ![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Ken
Ken
strangenh
NES Member
Full agreement.
One of the best comments I've read on that aspect of the arguments was posted at http://volokh.com/posts/1205856597.shtml#342681:
"What possible basis could there be for such an exception? Can Congress regulate the kind of presses people may operate? Can it ban high-speed copiers? If there were paper-detecting machines, and private property owners were using them (as is their right) to prevent people from bringing reading material on to their property, could Congress ban books and newspapers printed on plastic which could evade them?"
That made me smile, even though I know "public safety" will be held up as the 'legitimate state interest' that permits such bans.
And that means intermediate scrutiny or the strangest version of a strict scrutiny test yet.
Looks like an 'individual right' is going to be validated, but the level of scrutiny is going to be undecided or intermediate, leaving us with the status quo minus the most egregious bans.
Is that it then? Are there going to be more arguements or do they deliberate on todays arguements and give a decision?
The audio is on C-Span TV again in 5 minutes...
The full audio has been up on Tom Gresham's podcast for awhile now. I listened to it earlier.
http://www.guntalk.libsyn.com/
Gotta say, the Justices tore Dellinger a new one and that got me pumped, but the guy arguing for Heller I think shot himself in the foot by using the 1930's ruling and then turning around and saying that Machine guns should be banned.
http://www.guntalk.libsyn.com/
Gotta say, the Justices tore Dellinger a new one and that got me pumped, but the guy arguing for Heller I think shot himself in the foot by using the 1930's ruling and then turning around and saying that Machine guns should be banned.
SCOTUS
Now the trick is to come back and nibble away at any of the side aguments.trouble is most of these people never lived in the freedom of pre ww2.I bought 22 rifles in hardware store and got sales slip.not checks and no questions.pistols could be bought same way. in Mass you had to have permit to buy as the carry permit did not allow you to buy untill the 1950s.but all of use kids had hand guns.they were like mice all over the place.$.50 cents and $ 1.00.in 1945 you could buy lugers/p38/broomhandles for $20. I bought a win 73 in 32/20 and colt lightning 38 in Burmingham Al $5 for win and $2 for colt.carried home on bus to Mass.what stupidity it is now.
now if they ok MGs how many do you think will show up,100,000 may be.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
--
Now the trick is to come back and nibble away at any of the side aguments.trouble is most of these people never lived in the freedom of pre ww2.I bought 22 rifles in hardware store and got sales slip.not checks and no questions.pistols could be bought same way. in Mass you had to have permit to buy as the carry permit did not allow you to buy untill the 1950s.but all of use kids had hand guns.they were like mice all over the place.$.50 cents and $ 1.00.in 1945 you could buy lugers/p38/broomhandles for $20. I bought a win 73 in 32/20 and colt lightning 38 in Burmingham Al $5 for win and $2 for colt.carried home on bus to Mass.what stupidity it is now.
now if they ok MGs how many do you think will show up,100,000 may be.
--I know that machine guns were not part of the case, which concerned itself with handgun ownership regulation, but I couldn't believe how open the door was to reversing the 1986 law. I fear the Heller legal team didn't prepare for this potentiality, and this is why they wimped out. If this is the case, then their gut reaction would undoubtedly be, "We don't want to look like gun fanatics, let's downplay machine guns."
But I was really disappointed that the good guys didn't take advantage of the discussion about the parallels to the First Amendment. One of the justices mentioned that libel was illegal in spite of the Amendment's guarantees, but I would have submitted the Supreme Court's decision where the concept of "clear and present danger" was utilized as a reasonableness test. Libel is not analogous to gun control. If there is any "reasonable regulation," it should be based on a clear and present danger, which incidentally is also a good test for justified use of lethal force in self-defense cases.
I'm left reading the text version in my spare time... but i have to say i am happy with the direction this appears to be heading...
I don't think i have fully read/understood what side of the full auto guns yet... but I am seeing that things are not going the way that the Brady group and DC wanted them to. We obviously still have a long way to go on this, but i am keeping a positive outlook so far.
If things contiue down this path... my hope is that goal will have a way to to kick out the EOP and AG lists and the AW ban in MA.
That may be a long shot (pun intended) but I/we can hope.
I don't think i have fully read/understood what side of the full auto guns yet... but I am seeing that things are not going the way that the Brady group and DC wanted them to. We obviously still have a long way to go on this, but i am keeping a positive outlook so far.
If things contiue down this path... my hope is that goal will have a way to to kick out the EOP and AG lists and the AW ban in MA.
That may be a long shot (pun intended) but I/we can hope.
- Status
