Quantcast

Heller Oral Arguments Discussion

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ctdonath, Mar 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Because he wouldn't grandstand? or because he was throwing every alleged "grandstanding" talking point under the bus before the subjects even came up?
     
  2. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    I don't know why some people go so far out of their way to ignore what has been plainly stated in order to read into someone's comments things they have not said. Here's what I said:

    Machine guns have never been common firearms in terms of private ownership. This was true before federal regulation of them, and it is still true. One can reasonably argue that it is more true today because of the federal regs, but the fact is that those regs did not cause them to become UNcommon, because they were never common to begin with.
     
  3. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Getting SCOTUS finally recognize it and establish the precedent is.
     
  4. Vibe

    Vibe Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    Arkansas, USA
    I am so happy that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et al. all thought differently.
     
  5. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    The protection of a right should have absolutely nothing to do with how many instances of a product category constitute "common" - especially when that category, just coming into existence as potentially "common", promptly got regulated out of existence.

    If those items not "common" can be banned for not being "common", then OF COURSE THEY WON'T BECOME COMMON. We'll never progress forward! Would it have been reasonable to ban "bolt actions" because at the time they were introduced they were (obviously) not common? The reasoning just tries to justify the absurd "only protects muzzle-loaders" BS some other way.

    The M4 is standard issue, quintessential armament of the common soldier.
    That they were never common (in civilian hands) to begin with is a moot point. Remove the ban, and they'll become "common" practically overnight.
    Making a moot point makes people wonder what you're sneaking up to.
     
  6. BB62

    BB62 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    367
    Location:
    Ohio
    THUMPER,

    "Gura's reply (not to me):

    Please pay attention if you don't like what he had to say in orals..."

    Do you have a link from whence this came?

    I would LOVE to read more comments to/from Gura.

    Thanks!!
     
  7. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    Wineocerous said:
    I agree completely.
    However, because MG's were a relatively new invention (only 16 years had elapsed between the first war fought with them and the ban and the Tommy Gun was a model 1927, IIRC and only 7 years old) it begs the question as to whether the MG ever had a chance to become "common".
    I would venture to guess that had the Depression not happend when it did and had NFA'34 not happened when it did, MG's along the lines of the Tommy Gun might very well have become as common as shotguns and handguns. As it is, we will never know for sure. It is a moot point and I doubt if it could be argued to a definitive answer.

    We are stuck with what "is". And what "is", is Gura, IMHO, performed admirably for his client and has given the antis something to worry about. We also have a possible toehold to move forward to dismantle the decades of guncontrol laws one by one. I, for one, believe that's a lot more than we had a few days ago.

    My $0.02, FWIW.

    Poper
     
  8. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Quite true. And not at all a position I was contesting. Then again, how many of us wouldn't have at least one RPG in the safe if we could ;)
     
  9. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    You must be a lawyer. :uhoh:

    But you made my point, exactly! :evil:

    Thank you, Wineoceros! :D:D

    Poper
     
  10. pyrolater

    pyrolater Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2006
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Nevada
    Heres what I don't get. How Gura could not define what "keep" and "bear" mean.
     
  11. Wineoceros

    Wineoceros member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    230
    Not even close.

    Since I wasn't arguing against your point, I guess you're welcome.
     
  12. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    I know you weren't, and I appreciate it, too. Thank you very much!:)
    Whew! Thank goodness! That was close!:D

    Poper
     
  13. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,796
    As I'm listening to this finally at the Oyez website, which is nice because it shows the conversation in written words. I'll post some stuff I thought was interesting.

    not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State-managed.

    Good point to show that the National Guard (which is a rather recent invention is NOT the militia.)


    but by taking away the people's weapons... that was the way militias were destroyed.

    Very true.


    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.

    Very nice.
     
  14. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,796
    This is good.
     
  15. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    The passage you quoted does not say that the National Guard is not the militia. Guardsmen, when not called into federal service, are a part of the militia. In other words when serving as state guards, they are a part of the militia. (See Perpich v. DOD at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=334)
     
  16. Vibe

    Vibe Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    Arkansas, USA
    As I understand it the National Guard is not in any way "The Militia", They are not paid by the state and when called into service are part of the National Armed Forces.
     
  17. Ieyasu

    Ieyasu Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    The source of a militia's funding is irrelevant as to whether an organization is considered a militia. Rufus King, a Massachusetts delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when discussing the meaning of the Militia Clause in the Constitution said, "arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included the authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the state governments, or the national treasury..." (Elliot's Debates) This founder's statement clearly shows that regardless of how the militia was armed, it was still a militia.

    Nowadays civilians are generally not allowed to keep military arms, but that is a separate issue. Originally, regardless of how the militia was armed or funded, the Second Amendment was ratified to ensure the right of the people to keep their own arms (after all, federally supplied arms could be withdrawn).

    However, as you stated (and I did previously) that when the state NG's are called into federal service they are no longer militia, but are part of the army. Also, however, as mentioned previously, when in the service of the states they are functioning as militia. And again, this is meticulously explained in the Supreme Court decision Perpich cited previously.
     
  18. loki.fish

    loki.fish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Evansville, Indiana area
    Has anybody brought up the point that using rifles as self defense in Washington DC could cause injury/death to people in nearby residences? If DC is that worried about safety, they don't think very well.
     
  19. incursion

    incursion Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    294
    According to Ronald Mann, a professor at my law school who was a Supreme Court Clerk, cases cannot be won on oral argument. However, he said that you can lose a case on oral argument by saying something stupid. He proceeded to tell us about some death penalty case where Alan Dershowitz said something really stupid, and basically lost the case because of his oral argument. He said that all of the clerks knew how their respective judge was going to vote on a case the moment certiorari was granted.
     
  20. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    It is a question laden with traps. Why don't YOU define "keep" and "bear" in an oral argument in 30 seconds so that it will stand up to further scrutiny by judges eager to trip you up. No doubt, DC residents were allowed to "keep" and "bear" long arms .... disassembled and with trigger locks... in their own homes. You see what I mean? It is not as easy a task as you might think. It is like defining "freedom of speech" in 30 or 40 seconds. Go ahead and have a try at that, too.
     
  21. Poper

    Poper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Approximately N33°18' / W111°48'
    I've been re-reading this thread and found Gaiudo's estimations of the Justices interesting.

    From Gaiudo's post#256:
    From: http://justicethomas.blogspot.com/
    I think Thomas leaves little to the imagination, no?
    I really like this guy!

    Just my 2 cents.

    Poper
     
  22. green-grizzly

    green-grizzly Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    181
    Thomas didn't say anything, but he apparently did find Scalia's skewering of Dellinger to be pretty funny:
    http://www.aim.org/guest-column/heller-gun-rights-case-goes-better-than-expected/
     
  23. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    Because he did not have to go there. If he had to go there, then there are some unpleasant things which he would have to address. Specifically the debates in the 1st Congress concerning the CO clause.

    It is a two edged sword, the debates raise a spector that is not helpful to our side in some respects, however other aspects of the debate are similarly not helpful to the other side. Thus niether side choose to open up that can of worms... and since none of the justices opened that can of worms either, the question remained unasked and unanswered.
     
  24. BB62

    BB62 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    367
    Location:
    Ohio
    So, you can lose at oral, and the briefs mean nothing?

    Hmmm...
     
  25. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    In a case like this? Maybe. Look at how long a 2A case has been building up. It even came up at Robert's confirmation hearings.

    I suspect a fundamental issue like this is pretty clear in the minds of the Justices.

    Let me ask it this way. Given what YOU believe about the Second, could a bunch of lawyers change your mind?

    They could not change mine, not in a million years. My understanding and belief of what the Second says is clear as a bell in my own mind and there is little anyone could do to even make a dent, let alone change my fundamental position.

    I suspect most of us are the same way, and I suspect a good number of the Justices, if not all, are the same as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice