DC vs. Heller:ALL Related Discussion: VICTORY! Merged - Page 7

lopadrino79 · March 18th, 2008, 02:39 PM

Darn it I signed onto cnn to late to listen. From reading the post it sounds cautiously positive. Did they say when a decision would be announced or are they going to hear more testimony?

imatt · March 18th, 2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lopadrino79

Darn it I signed onto cnn to later to listen. From reading the post it sounds cautiously positive. Did they say when a decision would be announced or are they going to hear more testimony?

I don't think there's any more testimony. Verdict in June.

matiki · March 18th, 2008, 02:40 PM

They're playing the 2006 FCC case now. So it's official over for awhile.

ccw9mm · March 18th, 2008, 02:44 PM

C-Span review following the oral arguments:

Quote:

"... [handguns] have no legitimate purpose in the purely urban [area] of D.C."

Red herring.

I wonder what it is, exactly, about a fire extinguisher that has no legitimate purpose in, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma. To suggest that a close, urban environment somehow superposes a magical failing or riskiness upon firearms such that they now hold no purpose whatsoever is like suggesting that firefighting equipment usefulness somehow varies from place to place.

The reality is: intruders and criminals bent on harming innocent citizens are dangerous in the extreme and firearms improve the odds that innocents can defend themselves. It hardly varies with where someone lives.

nutz4utwo · March 18th, 2008, 02:49 PM

Justice Roberts:

Quote:

If it is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"? In other words, why wouldn't they say "state militias have the right to keep arms"?

MR. DELLINGER:

Quote:

Mr. Chief Justice, I believe that the phrase "the people" and the phrase "the militia" were really in -- in sync with each other. You will see references in the debates of, the Federalist Farmer uses the phrase "the people are the militia, the militia are the people."

Quote:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

BigEFan · March 18th, 2008, 02:58 PM

I'm working on a Oral Argument Highlight Document for everyone. Should have it up in a bit!

randytulsa2 · March 18th, 2008, 03:05 PM

This could really turn out to be a great day to be an American. An acknowledged RIGHT, as expressed clearly in our organic document (the Constitution) to arm ourselves is one of the big differences between us and others who try to call themselves free people.

AMH · March 18th, 2008, 03:06 PM

I can hardly contain myself.
This stuff is like the superbowl for me.

kazzaerexys · March 18th, 2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imatt

As in saying it says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be reasonably infringed." That's what I pulled from the discussion, anyway.

To the Supreme Court, that is exactly the case. Every right, no matter how inalienable, is potentially subject to restrictions. That is why the standard used to review those restrictions is the most potentially important part of this decision. And that was, to our side, the weak part of SG Clement's brief---he argued that intermediate scrutiny is acceptable, whereas the Circuit Court decision and most of the pro-Heller amici argue for strict scrutiny.

That got some discussion during SG Clement's time, but not a lot, and, IMO, will be the biggest sticking point in the final decision. Note that Alito pretty much stated that the DC functional firearms ban/handgun ban probably wouldn't survive any level of judicial review. That's important, because it probably is the opening needed to avoid making that decision at all.

Okay, here is my prediction:

Majority decision in favor of Heller, penned by Alito or Kennedy, signed by Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Bader-Ginsburg, and Breyer. It will acknowledge an individual RKBA and uphold the unconstitutionality of DC's gun ban based on the fact that it fails any standard of constitutional review.
Concurring opinion signed by Roberts and Scalia agrees to same but argues that strict scrutiny should apply to a fundmanetal, inalienable right. (Alito and/or Thomas might sign this version instead of the primary opinion.)
Dissenting opinion signed by Stevens and Souter will support DC for some suitably incongruous reason, though possibly also acknowledging the individual right interpretation, just subject to sufficient restrictions as to allow DC's law as-is.

So, I see it as 7-2 in favor of Heller with no establishment of specific standard of review for other gun laws, but with strong emphasis towards a stricter level of review.

Check back on this in June.

nutz4utwo · March 18th, 2008, 03:15 PM

there is some Powerful pro-gun quotes in here:

Dillinger (DC's lawyer!)

Quote:

It is a universal or near universal rule of criminal law that there is a self-defense exception. It goes without saying. We have no argument whatsoever with the notion that you may load and have a weapon ready when you need to use it for self- defense.

March 18th, 2008, 02:40 PM	#63
matiki Distinguished Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: N.W. Posts: 1,681	They're playing the 2006 FCC case now. So it's official over for awhile. __________________

March 18th, 2008, 02:58 PM	#66
BigEFan VIP Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Central California Posts: 2,027	I'm working on a Oral Argument Highlight Document for everyone. Should have it up in a bit! __________________ *Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!* "Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

March 18th, 2008, 03:05 PM	#67
randytulsa2 Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,381	This could really turn out to be a great day to be an American. An acknowledged RIGHT, as expressed clearly in our organic document (the Constitution) to arm ourselves is one of the big differences between us and others who try to call themselves free people. __________________ "...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes." Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

March 18th, 2008, 03:06 PM	#68
AMH Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 310	I can hardly contain myself. This stuff is like the superbowl for me. __________________ Join the NRA! The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about keeping the government in check. This requires that the citizenry is well armed and at all times has immediate access to arms.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 18th, 2008, 02:39 PM	#61
lopadrino79 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 163	Darn it I signed onto cnn to late to listen. From reading the post it sounds cautiously positive. Did they say when a decision would be announced or are they going to hear more testimony?