Heller - Oral arguments posted

[kludge]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/07-290.pdf

[Jorg]

Aren't court reportors amazing?

Thanks for the link!

[Headless]

Wow, this is an interesting read. As of page 20 it appears that we might do OK today...

[SSN Vet]

The DC gun ban is toast....

the second clause infers an individual right and the nature of that right is informed by, but not limited to the first clause.....

that's that bottom line folks....

[AndrewGWU]

It appears from what I have skimmed that we have a very good chance of an individual right perspective when the ruling comes down striking down the DC ban but insuring that reasonable legislation could be created in relation to firearms.

[stubob2517]

When I listened to the arguments, it sounded like we did OK. Once I read them, it looks even better. I believe the individual right is going to cause (at a minimum) a re-write of the legislation.

[Halo]

There are several articles out already saying the Justices "appear" to be on the individual rights side. Here's one from the LA Times:

U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to strike down D.C. handgun ban

[CNYCacher]

Originally Posted by Walter Dellinger, Lawyer for DC

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.

[bogie]

And why the pukey?

If they have no argument -whatsoever- that one may load an have a weapon ready for self defense, well, that -whatsoever- pretty much means 24/7/home/away...

[Halo]

I think the pukey is because they're so disingenuous when they say things like that. Nauseatingly so.

[Winchester 73]

A bare majority sounded ready to say "yes" to all three. Such a ruling may have a limited effect, however, since Washington's law is seen as the strictest in the nation

I love The Los Angeles Time's desperate last paragraph.

[rust collector]

Oral arguments are great theatre, but judges and justices aren't above playing with their food. I've seen court opinions that were 180 degrees from the tenor of the oral argument.

The challenge is to make your client look reasonable. How well did each side do? There is no substitute for viewing the transcript yourself. Just don't think that is all there is to the story, or that an earth-shattering decision is in the offing.

[XD Fan]

Thanks for posting. Things look positive.

[PTK]

Originally Posted by 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.

Second paragraph on page seven of the linked PDF (lines 8-21). That just made me smile.

[rainbowbob]

MR. DELLINGER: Well, it's -- it's -- the carry provision, you cannot carry unregistered firearms. That's just a general requirement, that firearms be registered. You're not allowed to register handguns is the mechanism by which they are prohibited.

I would say that is a pretty compelling reason to never agree to statutes requiring the registration of firearms

Thanks for posting the link to the court transcript. After reading the entire transcript (whew!) it seems that the majority is leaning in the right direction. However, don't expect an opinion that will rule out "reasonable restrictions". It is genarally conceded that such restrictions can be applied to any right. Examples are libel laws restricting free speech; and firearm restrictions for convicted felons.

[Rokyudai]

I just finished my first read of the entire oral arguments. I have to say RainbowBob; the quote:

You're not allowed to register handguns is the mechanism by which they are prohibited.

stuck with me as well.

I wouldn't say for a minute that the fundamental process of not allowing handgun registration is sufficient logic to justify the reason for why they are prohibited. Dellinger makes a vacuous statement which attempts to place marijuana or heroine possession (whether in the home or in public) in the same category of the gun ban. The 'if we ban or outlaw something, it won't happen anymore' mentality shines through. It's despicable and pretentious to think we are doing any better with the war on drugs than the 'war' they are declaring on the law abiding, pro RKBA members of society.

Even for that matter, it fails to show that this line of legislation has done anything to decrease violent crime or deter thieves from obtaining handguns illegally.. I'm not seeing a strong connection and I'm not seeing how this ban will have a leg to stand on. Hopefully...

[MachIVshooter]

Good lord, reading that kind of unabridged transcript gives me a headache.

All I can say is, whichever way Heller goes, I'm very thankful that Colorado's state constitution regarding RKBA is very deliberately and very clearly written to affirm an absolute individual right with no room for different interpretations.

[v35]

Originally Posted by Walter Dellinger, Lawyer for DC
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.

And why the pukey?

Knowing their pathetically weak position on the matter, I infer that Mr Dellinger expects owners to keep their guns in a disassembled and useless state until they're required to be used in self-defense. Then 1. retrieve 2. unlock 3. assemble 4. prepare magazine 5. load magazine ...

Makes perfect sense to Mayor Fenty, I'm sure.

[Louisiana Carry]

http://www.downrange.tv/rkba/dc-v-heller.htm

[R127]

Not to rain on the parade but nothing that the supreme court jesters have said rules out limiting mere civilians from owning more than a single shot .22lr plinking rifle. Sure, it could be going worse but this isn't exactly great.

[usmarine0352_2005]

You're not allowed to register handguns is the mechanism by which they are prohibited.

What? Of course your allowed to have a registered handgun, as long as your rich and elite.

[Superlite27]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:

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?

GOOD

JUSTICE SCALIA:

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

GOOD

JUSTICE KENNEDY:

And in my view, it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms without reference to the militia either way.

CONFIRMED

JUSTICE GINSBURG:

But wasn't there leeway for some weapon prohibition?

BAD

JUSTICE ALITO:

If the amendment is intended at least, in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense.....

GOOD

JUSTICE BREYER:

....of the District of Columbia, a total ban, why is that reasonable regulation viewed in terms of the purposes as I described them?

WISHY-WASHY

JUSTICE STEVENS:

But the text itself does draw a distinction, just as the second amendment does. It doesn't mention self-defense.

BAD

JUSTICE SOUTER:

Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in washington, DC, using handguns?

BAD

I found no comments or questions from JUSTICE THOMAS, but rumor has it he's a GOOD.

JUSTICE BREYER sounded mostly BAD, but had a few questions that sounded GOOD leading me to believe it might be possible for a GOOD ruling from someone who is in favor of BAD restrictions. Hence WISHY-WASHY

To summarize my analysis, we have 4 definate GOODS 3 probable BADS 1 rumored GOOD and one WISHY-WASHY

I think with 5 and a WISHY-WASHY, we can reasonably assume a favorable ruling.