Heller Oral Arguments Discussion

[Guitargod1985]

Call 202-585-3886 to vote NO to the SC upholding the DC ban.

That should be presented in a new topic.

 

[Ian]

It is ok to ban plastic guns that are specifically designed to defeat metal detectors??????

If it'll make the SC happy, I'll step forward to wholehearted support a ban on pulse rifles in the 40-MW range. They can ban imaginary things as long as we can keep the real ones.

 

[Thumper]

He had a lot of opportunities but, as pointed out earlier, he didn't capitalize on them.

Deavis, were you listening on CNN or CSpan? The reason I ask is that CSpan made note of which Justice was asking the question. It was VERY obvious who was on our side and who was not. What you heard as opportunities were attempts by Breyer and Ginsburg to get Gura to broaden his argument.

The "opportunities" you mention were landmines being laid in Gura's path by Breyer and Ginsburg. Gura's job here was to stay narrow. If he would have strayed into the machinegun conversation, we would be hosed.

Gura (and Heller) were NOT trying to make this an All-or-Nothing case. You shouldn't be either.

 

[ufstuddmuffin]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

transcript posted, guess im a little late

 

[armoredman]

Didn't they mention 80+ breifs filed? Lots of opinions and pleadings.
I was unhappy about Gura stating he was OK with licensing, machine gun bans, etc, but I am in Free AZ, and what seems like onerous restrictions to me are a breath of fresh air to D.C. Time enough to address those concerns later.

 

[General Geoff]

The ball is still very much in the air. While it's likely that we'll gain at least some sort of "individual rights" interpretation, for all we know it could be just lip-service and have no real impact on any gun laws. Conversely the court could say "the right is absolute, and covers rocket launchers" much to the delight of us gunnies (not likely, but hey, a guy can dream ).

 

[RNB65]

Is is possible to get copies of the briefs that were filed with the court in this case? I've been reading thru the oral transcript and it's hard to put a lot of the discussion into context without knowing what arguments and opinions were expressed in the briefs.
-

 

[CZ 75 BD]

RNB65

Briefs and transcripts available shortly on C-SPAN.ORG.

 

[Draven32]

All the briefs are available online. As are transcripts for today's oral arguments.

 

[gego]

I was disappointed to hear the Heller attorney concede the idea that the government may impose "reasonable" infringement.

You may be punished for misuse of your mouth in free speech or a printing press, but the punishment comes after the misuse, not as a prior restriction.

I gather that Heller will win this case, but that the victory will be hollow since the ruling will be that we do have an individual right subject to much restriction at the pleasure of politicians, judges, and bureaucrats.

 

[Augustwest]

While keeping to the case at hand is good strategy, Gura had to have anticipated questions about licensing, automatic weapons, etc. I'm puzzled as to why he didn't better prepared to duck those questions rather than conceding them.

 

[buzz_knox]

Call 202-585-3886 to vote NO to the SC upholding the DC ban.

What number is that?

 

[rdhood]

I'm not worried at all that Gura did not push the MG point. The logical conclusion after the establishment of the 2nd as an individual right is "a right to what?" I think Miller answered that: the right to any arm that would be carried in battle by a national guardsman. That includes automatic weapons. The NFA may be found constitutional, but the refusal to register new weapons will be found to be a de-facto ban, and is unconstitutional.

Here is the good thing... as soon as the individual right is established, then someone can try to register a new automatic weapon... get turned down... and sue the government. THAT is how the game is played.

 

[littlegator]

Interesetingly, having looked at my state's constitution, it appears that no matter how Heller goes, Nevada has already recognized the individual citizen's right to bear arms.

11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

Therefore, if the Court doesn't apply a bright line rule for all jurisdictions, the individual states may still provide the right. The states can add to a right, they just can't detract from it.

Additionally, even though some of the justices appear to be going one way or another by their questions, their demeanor and even their method of questioning are not determinative of their decision. Many a case has been heard where it appeared from the questions that certain justices would lean one way or another, only to find out later that a compromise was reached after oral arguments. After oral args are over, some members of the Court might start politicking the other members, which is not unusual. Usually, a strong Chief Justice does this routinely. It remains to be seen what Roberts will do.

 

[fletcher]

Here is the good thing... as soon as the individual right is established, then someone can try to register a new automatic weapon... get turned down... and sue the government. THAT is how the game is played.

Exactly. What we need first is a strong ruling giving us the power and backing to proceed with the other fights we choose.

 

[Cosmoline]

Oral argument before the appellate court is a very refined art form. It is NOT a legislative debate, though it may appear to be. What seems like an invitation to "win more" for our side may in fact be a trick question or a trap. The key is to stay focused on what you need to win the case at bar. Getting sidetracked on other issues is unwise.

I'll review the transcript tonight and post some of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Tim James]

And here I was all ready to drill out some sears and shoot at manatees from my car this afternoon.

Guess I'll have to wait until June.

 

[redneckrepairs]

While keeping to the case at hand is good strategy, Gura had to have anticipated questions about licensing, automatic weapons, etc. I'm puzzled as to why he didn't better prepared to duck those questions rather than conceding them.

He was not there to duck issues , nor was he there to argue beyond the scope of Heller . Folks this is a narrow case dealing with the constitutionality of ONE law . Expanding on this narrow issue will take further lawsuits no matter what SCOUS decides on it . Tho in one sense its " for all the marbles " as the SCOUS is taking up a law based on the meaning and intent of the 2nd the judgement will be only on this law and to bring a split of circut courts into line . The constitutionality of other laws will ( most likely ) have to be challenged by bringing the law before the federal court who in turn will use this judgement to decide on the scope of the 2nd .

Gura did well for the case at hand IMHO and we have to win it before we worry about anything else .

 

[buzz_knox]

Oral argument before the appellate court is a very refined art form. It is NOT a legislative debate, though it may appear to be. What seems like an invitation to "win more" for our side may in fact be a trick question or a trap. The key is to stay focused on what you need to win the case at bar. Getting sidetracked on other issues is unwise.

Exactly. When a door gets open wider, it can be slammed in your face that much harder. Judges can and will do this to make a point.

 

[Thumper]

Well put, redneckrepairs and Cosmo.

 

[rbernie]

Gura had to have anticipated questions about licensing, automatic weapons, etc. I'm puzzled as to why he didn't better prepared to duck those questions rather than conceding them.

I wondered the same, as well.

He was not there to duck issues

But when presented with the questions - he could either answer them or punt. He chose to have no ready answer and was speaking extemporaneously.

That could have been done more gracefully.

 

[Richard.Howe]

And here I was all ready to drill out some sears and shoot at manatees from my car this afternoon.

Guess I'll have to wait until June.

Best line of the day...

 

[Sam Adams]

rdhood

I think Miller answered that: the right to any arm that would be carried in battle by a national guardsman. That includes automatic weapons. The NFA may be found constitutional, but the refusal to register new weapons will be found to be a de-facto ban, and is unconstitutional.

Here is the good thing... as soon as the individual right is established, then someone can try to register a new automatic weapon... get turned down... and sue the government. THAT is how the game is played.

I agree that the 922(o) ban on new full auto registrations should go down.

BUT...

...without the '34 NFA also going down, nothing other than us proletariat types melting the phone lines in Congress is going to prevent the price of a tax stamp from being raised from $200 to $5,000 or $10,000. I dislike the entire idea of having to pay to exercise a basic right. Once that occurs, it is a privilege, not a right, and all of the arguing is on the other side's terms.

This is similar to the old joke about the guy offering a girl $1 million to sleep with him, doing it, and then giving her $100. She yelled and wailed loudly, "What do you think I am!?" and he responded, "Well, that's already been established, now we're just haggling over the price."

The '34 NFA MUST be destroyed. I think that good groundwork was laid here. Having Miller talked about as being "deficient" was extremely encouraging.

 

[Jamie C.]

Does anybody here really expect to gain back almost 70 years of loses, all at once?

Personally, I'll be real damned happy if this turns out to be enough to just keep another "assault weapon" ban from being enacted, or having further restrictions heaped on us..

Especially considering what we've got running for POTUS right now....

We've lived without easily-obtained fully automatic weapons this long... a bit longer isn't going to matter much.


J.C.

 

[Eagle103]

Here is the good thing... as soon as the individual right is established, then someone can try to register a new automatic weapon... get turned down... and sue the government. THAT is how the game is played.

+1000 The fight won't end with this case but hopefully the proper groundwork will be laid for future cases.