Discussion in 'Legal' started by ctdonath, Mar 18, 2008.
The man is brilliant.
Looks like maybe he was cursed so that he could not lie for about a minute
Once the individual right to own such arms is established it would seem that such taxes could be likened to poll taxes which have obviously been ruled unconstitutional.
I, for one, am glad that Gura did not create any clips for the media to play tonight that would make 2nd Amendment folks look like crazed nuts. If he had, the media would immediately spin this and say, "If the court decides in Heller's favor, the next Virginia Tech shooter will have an M16!" This is one case, about one law.
I believe that Gura formed his statements around a couple swing votes in the court. Had he planted the idea in the mind of the justices that, "hanguns are first, and MG's are NEXT!!", they may vote against Heller for the sake of the greater good (in their mind).
He did a good job of not giving dissenters (in the media, or the court), and toe holds to make a decision based on some fear of the future.
What a putz. Glad that he was arguing for the other side.
Brief summary of my thoughts for the individual conservative judges:
Chief Justice: Sharp as a razor, willing to examine both sides of things, but (as per his willingness to rip Dillinger a new one from the start), no wilting flower.
Alito: Honed in on the specific issue that seemed the most disjointed and problematic for DC: their LYING about the ability to use rifles/shotguns, that they must be disassembled. I am so glad he honed in on this, and demonstrated the DC claims that the handgun was the only weapon regulated out of use.
Scalia: I'm always amazed at how simply brilliant this man is. He knows SO MUCH, in terms of broad law, international law, narrow rulings, the obscure, etc. And he is absolutely a razor when it comes to slashing weak arguments apart. At times, I felt he argued more powerfully for the individual right than Gura (which I guess is what we want).
Kennedy was a bit surprising. His apparently willingness to look past contemporary "social conventional wisdom", and examine the actual constitutional meaning, was apparent from his first question. Perhaps it was all a show, but his active drubbing of the DC lawyers was fun to watch.
Ginsburg is a conundrum. There were moments when she showed flashes of brilliance: "the second is just like the first, there is no difference in required scrutiny, both can afford strict scrutiny" my jaw dropped more on that line than any other, perhaps with the exception of Kennedy stating that Miller was deficient and needs review.
Then there is the mind of Thomas... how I could have heard what he was thinking. Perhaps he'll write a book on it some day.
Breyer was just annoying... his questions wasted more time than anything. Souter was his usual self.
I happen to agree. But it'll delay things a bunch. Here's the scenario:
1. We win here.
2. The day after this case is won, someone brings a case in federal court, suing the BATFE for failure to issue a tax stamp for a brand-new M4 or M16.
3. That case takes 2-3 years to go through the system.
4. We win (PLEASE!). The '86 ban is lifted.
5. The next day Congress passes an increase in the price of the tax stamp to $5,000, and President Obama or Hillary signs it.
Now we have to go through the whole BS process again. And if we win, 2-3 years later, on the poll tax issue, then the feds can cut back on funding to the BATFE so that there's only 1 employee reviewing the NFA registry, so it'll take 6 years to get approved. Yeah, I know, there'll be another suit...
...F that, let's just get rid of the '34 NFA. If my grandfathers could have walked into their local Sears in 1933 and bought a Tommygun with no federal tax, no local PD approval needed, no background check, no waiting period, etc., why can't I? The entire idea of a right being subject to approval and fees is an abomination. Can the SOBs make you get a tax stamp to attend a house of worship, or to buy a book? Can they even make you register for either of those things? No...then neither can they constitutionally make us register and pay a fee to exercise our RKBA, not even for full autos.
The 1934 National Firearms Act must be repealed.
More lessons in how to look foolish...
Souter, was ready for it. These clowns kept walking into his ambushes all day.
They can already do this, the reason they don't is that they don't want to open that can of worms. Once they start editing the 34' NFA who's knows whatever havoc we can insert, silencers no longer forbidden, short barrels allowed, requirements concerning rules from BATFE being explicit, they can't just modify one portion and pass the law in secret. (yes, they could a decade back or so, but thanks to the internet it is very difficult to get away that crap anymore.)
I wish I were as clever as Scalia
The transcripts are up already by the way.....
I followed some of this testimony this morning on the live feed. What I gathered the most is that Justice Scalia is a Second Amendment stud!
His exchanges with the DC attorney were breathtaking!
You will never, ever get any popular, legal, or political consensus for the notion that RKBA is not subject to reasonable restrictions. And you will never get a ruling that severe restrictions on full-auto arms are anything but reasonable.
That's just the way it is, and will always be.
I wish our side would have come back to the handgun ban argument that handguns are concealable, portable, easier to take on a bus, in a school, etc., the exact same characteristics make them effective for self-defense in and out of the home.
I'm not sure about totally repealing the NFA, but it should be declawed. I'm not really comfortable with having it legal for my 8 year old idiotic neighbors purchasing howitzers.
The most realistically favorable ruling in this case won't get you 1/10,000 of a step closer to that. Accept reality. That's not going to happen. Ever.
That's the number to call if you want to get on air with CSPAN. It's not a voting line.
They give different numbers for different positions to queue them up easier.
Good. I was worried that someone was, as people have suggested from time to time, advocating calling the Supreme Court and lodging a "vote."
That would be a very negative thing for our side.
That is simply never going to happen.
What CAN happen however, and in our lifetime, is a repeal of the Hughes Amendment portion of FOPA.
THAT is possible.
Full autos aren't common BECAUSE of the '34 NFA. It costs little, if anything, more to manufacture a full auto M16 than a semi-auto AR15. But for the '34 NFA, wouldn't almost everyone buy the full auto with the selector switch (which, BTW, can be dialed to semi-auto if that's how one wants to shoot the weapon)?
We'll be seeing this again. So may Scalia.
NFA-34 is NOT going away. Put it completely out of your mind.
But that does not mean that NFA-34 cannot be amended into something far more reasonable.
The background check requirement? They didn't have NICS in 1934...we do now. Ditto for fast fingerprint comparisons, if we retain that. Chief Law Enforcement signoff? We get that down to CLEO notification and leave it at that. Suppressors? Actually, I think that a strong case can be made for deregulating them on noise pollution grounds - if not making them mandatory for some firearms.
Let's face it, what is driving NFA owners up a wall is ONE thing. Section 922(o). The ban on manufacturing. Win there, and the rest we can live with.
Thomas, I believe, has not said a word in court for two years.
Exactly - keep your eyes on what we can actually accomplish.
I am sick to DEATH of these absurd comments. Seriously where would an 8 year old get the funds to buy a howitzer? How would they transport it, or load it for that matter? That being the case why would anyone even bother wasting sweat on this sort of worry?
I think the NFA 34 does need to go away.
The background check portion has been entirely superseded by the instant check system.
The 200 dollar tax is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Machine guns are functionally almost identical to semiautos. Most machine guns are select fire and can be operated exactly the same as ordinary rifles.
The transfer registry has never been properly maintained for the entire history of the agency.
Even if we can't succeed in gettting rid of NFA-34, the constant galloping inflation is making the 200 dollar tax increasingly easy to bear and the trust/corporate NFA route makes the transfer hassle relatively easy to bear.
At the very least, unless the Dems win in November, I think we will eventually succeed in killing the 86 ban. We may even succeed in killing the NFA-34 restrictions someday as well or at least succeed in making them unenforceable somehow.
The sooner we can shovel dirt over the ATF, the better.
It appears to me that most oral arguing before the Court is "show business" anyway. The real meat is in the writings of the Justices.
Thomas speaks as loud as any when you read his stuff.
I think he just lets the others have their moment in the spotlight and no interest in that for himself.
I think it shows real class. I may be totally wrong but that's how it comes across to me.
Separate names with a comma.