SCOTUS News

[Sandhiller]

NEWS ALERT
from The Wall Street Journal


March 18, 2008

The Supreme Court heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. A majority of justices appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, rather than linking the right only 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. The case is likely to produce the most important firearms ruling in generations. A ruling is expected by summer.

For more information, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120584308977444987.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

[Bill of Rights]

I am very disappointed in Mr. Gura's statements, Mr. Alan Gura is the lead counsel for Heller in this case, and among his arguments this morning, I found this discourse:


MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: That are not appropriate to --
MR. GURA: That are not appropriate to civilian use.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?
MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns: It's difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court's opinion, that would sanction machine guns or the plastic, undetectable handguns that the Solicitor General spoke of. ...


The transcript of the oral arguments is located at:
http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Perhaps he meant that it was acceptable to ban "the plastic, undetectable handguns that the Soliciter General spoke of" because such things do not exist, but I cannot see his point in supporting a "ban" on machine guns, especially since we DO NOT have one now and on a federal level, we never have; only a burdonsome, restrictive tax. (I'm reminded of our Founders' reaction to a tax on tea.)

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/bang.gif

God, help us. http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/headshake.gif

Blessings,
B

[Sandhiller]

Goodness, not the "plastic undetectable handgun" baloney again! It might be nice to have a gun-savvy att'y arguing such a case, wouldn't you think?

[tuna]

It really looked like the Justices were soft-balling the machine gun issue to Gura, and he refused to swing.

I understand that it wasn't part of the case at hand, but if the Justices brought it up, and seemingly in a nice way, it could have been a huge smash if Gura had said that we SHOULD own machine guns. Imagine if this case had been able to knock down, if not the NFA, then at least George Bush's (41) 87 machine gun ban.....

I'd personally love to own one, but due to my wallet, a FA .22 would be the only thing I could afford to feed.

[Bill of Rights]

Goodness, not the "plastic undetectable handgun" baloney again! It might be nice to have a gun-savvy att'y arguing such a case, wouldn't you think?

Yep. If I recall (not looking at the transcript at the moment) Clement brought it up, the Justices didn't seem to have a problem with it, they mentioned it to Gura, and he just lit it fall flat. I really wish we could have a true, no-compromise attorney arguing for us, rather than slop like what Gura offered. Hell, with an "argument" like this, we'll be lucky if SCOTUS doesn't rule that we're not allowed to even use strong language, much less firearms.

Blessings,
B

[Smokewagon]

I heard a lot of statements that didn't make me happy, but overall I think the ruleing will be minimally in favor of gunowners. I'd like to see things changed in DC and Chicago. Once that begins, then I think we can see some sweeping changes across the country. And that's my 2 pennies worth. 8)

[junglebob]

So we have an attorney "arguing for us" that thinks there are undetectable plastic handguns. Great, I might be able to do a better job, and I'm not a lawyer. Couldn't they find someone who knows something?

[pioneer461]

So we have an attorney "arguing for us" that thinks there are undetectable plastic handguns. Great, I might be able to do a better job, and I'm not a lawyer. Couldn't they find someone who knows something?

The case before the court has to maintain a very narrow focus. Mr. Gura was being baited into a red-herring argument about side issues by the unfriendly justices, and he did not take the bait. Please read the comments in a recent "Shooting Wire" article by Tom Gresham, who has intimate knowledge with the case and with Mr. Gura.

http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire.html?date=2008-03-21

And one by Jim Shepherd at;
http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire.html?date=2008-03-24

If he were to take the bait and get drawn into a discussion about auto guns and "plastic guns" we stood a chance to lose it all. Mr. Gura knows what he is doing and presented a very good case that the anti-gun justices will have trouble disagreeing with. It has taken decades to have our rights whittled away, and it will take time for us to regain them as intended.

First we need to get a ruling that we have an individual right, then we go after the other stuff. One step at a time. If we were to follow the GOA "all or noting" model, we could very well wind up with nothing.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Political/icecold.jpg

[pioneer461]

A bit more on this. If you'd like to hear a discussion on this topic, go to the archives at Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, at;
http://guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php?post_year=2008&post_month=03

Near the top of the page, find 2008-03-23, Part A, Sun 23 March 2008, and download. You can listen to the entire interview with Alan Korwin, or you can fast forward to 26:20.

[Bill of Rights]

So we have an attorney "arguing for us" that thinks there are undetectable plastic handguns. Great, I might be able to do a better job, and I'm not a lawyer. Couldn't they find someone who knows something?

The case before the court has to maintain a very narrow focus. Mr. Gura was being baited into a red-herring argument about side issues by the unfriendly justices, and he did not take the bait. Please read the comments in a recent "Shooting Wire" article by Tom Gresham, who has intimate knowledge with the case and with Mr. Gura.

http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire.html?date=2008-03-21

And one by Jim Shepherd at;
http://www.shootingwire.com/shooting_wire.html?date=2008-03-24

If he were to take the bait and get drawn into a discussion about auto guns and "plastic guns" we stood a chance to lose it all. Mr. Gura knows what he is doing and presented a very good case that the anti-gun justices will have trouble disagreeing with. It has taken decades to have our rights whittled away, and it will take time for us to regain them as intended.

First we need to get a ruling that we have an individual right, then we go after the other stuff. One step at a time. If we were to follow the GOA "all or noting" model, we could very well wind up with nothing.

Pioneer,

What would have been wrong with answering, "Well, there are no such thing as "undetectable plastic handguns", and the Second Amendment was intended as a limit upon government, not upon the people, however, that's not our focus today. Today, we're discussing the laws in DC which we believe violate the Constitution, and as Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

That would have maintained the narrow focus as well as set the stage for the later case(s) when the remainder of our ability to exercise our rights will be argued, wouldn't it?

My concern is that they'll agree with him and decide that "reasonable regulation" and the gov't's authority to ban certain guns is worthy of enshrinement into a SCOTUS decision, and will provide a "win" for the anti-rights crowd.

Blessings,
B

[Eagle Five Zero]

My understanding is that the final written opinion is coming out sometime this summer - probably July. That will make for an interesting discussion in the Presidential Debates of this Fall.

[Bill of Rights]

My understanding is that the final written opinion is coming out sometime this summer - probably July. That will make for an interesting discussion in the Presidential Debates of this Fall.

Welcome to CarryConcealed, Eagle Five Zero! http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/wave.gif

I'd heard late June as well. I don't much care when the decision is announced, I just hope the Justices read the text in plain English and understand that rights are not subject to legislation, that someone DOES have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, BUT that in doing so, he accepts the responsibility for his actions. Similarly, when someone commits a violent crime with a firearm, I think that person should be held accountable for his actions, but the rest of us should not be restricted because of what someone else might do. I recall a concept of "prior restraint" somewhere in the law...

I also saw an interesting summation of what's going on in places like DC and Boston (and more specifically, what was being attempted in San Francisco until the CA Supreme Court issued their ruling) on another board a day or two ago: Our beloved leaders are trying to tackle the problem by removing the ABILITY to use force, without fixing the NEED to use force

We already have Hillary's view on gun rights (essentially, "there are none") and Obama slipped and told us his a couple days ago (elitist), but what will be interesting is how McCain will try to spin his and how the issue will affect the campaigns and the election.

Blessings,
B

[brotherbill3]

Bill of Rights:
that someone DOES have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, BUT that in doing so, he accepts the responsibility for his actions.

I understand where (or roughly "When") this ruling/interpretation came about (and I agree - you have the right and then you have the right to suffer the consequences for you actions) - but do you REALLY think if you yelled "FIRE" at the top of your lungs in a crowded theater TODAY ... ANYONE would actually stampede ... IF the fire alarms weren't already going off WAY louder than your yell?

Personally, I doubt it ... at least until they saw the flames ... or smelled the smoke ... they would just think you were a nut case and sit there doing their own thing ... (and yes ... I include myself it the bunch :oops: ) ... although ... I probably would start trying to figure out and pay much more attention to what all is going on around me again :?

Just an obervatoin ...

"Brother" Bill

[Bill of Rights]

Probably not, you're right. Still, however, as I know you (and probably everyone) understand, the point is that you can say whatever you want to say, but with that right of free speech or for that matter, any right, comes the responsibility for one's actions. I can choose to drink as much as I want to, but having done so is no excuse for vehicular manslaughter, the only viable exception coming to mind being if I didn't know I was consuming alcohol (like if someone added it to something I was drinking without my knowledge.)

I can think of no similar mitigating circumstance in re: free speech, free press, or RKBA.

Blessings,
B