nutz4utwo

transcript should be posted after they finish here (same day):

Argument Transcripts

__________________
DELLINGER in front of Supreme Court, March 18, 2008:

ccw9mm

FYI -- Oral arguments beginning NOW, at ~12:23pm EDT.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
US v Emerson, 2001: The 2A protects the individual RTKBA,
regardless if serving in a militia or military.

Redneck Repairs

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a fervent defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. “Why does any of that have any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?” Kennedy asked rhetorically.

With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the deciding vote.

source link

first A.P. story on the arguements

Supreme Court Reviews D.C. Handgun Ban

By MARK SHERMAN – 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the Districts of Columbia's ban on handguns.

A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.

But it is less clear what that means for the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate...to say no handguns here?" Justice Stephen Breyer said.

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokewoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."
source link

__________________
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

Redneck Repairs

cspan stream is at C-SPAN: Watch LIVE Ill see if i can dig up a downloadable link .

__________________
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

ccw9mm

Link for streaming audio: click here.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
US v Emerson, 2001: The 2A protects the individual RTKBA,
regardless if serving in a militia or military.

edr9x23super

DC Attorney Dellinger is getting hammered right now...... Most of it is coming from Justice Scalia and Roberts..

Thank god George W. appointed Justice Roberts. I am already seeing where the man stands by the questions he asks...

__________________
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

ccw9mm

Delliger was hardly allowed to get a word in edgewise.

Of course, now Clement is being similarly peppered with questions.

Words, words, words. If it keeps up like this, it's gonna (to use Dellinger's terminology) come down to a comma.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
US v Emerson, 2001: The 2A protects the individual RTKBA,
regardless if serving in a militia or military.

glock27mark

cnn.com is having live broadcast (audio only).

__________________
{sheriff buford t. justice}what the h*** is the
world coming too.

nra life member

Daps

wow thanks for the cnn heads up...

talking about the trigger lock...like the remark so whats a person suppose to do when hearing someone entering your home

imatt

Alito is really pushing pro-gun, not that it's unexpected.

(quoted on memory)
"When would it be acceptable to unlock your gun? When someone's broken into your house? Are you going to have time to do this before you are attacked? There would never be enough time."

__________________
~Matt
imatt.us

Track HR 1022