In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Transcript of DC Gun Ban case oral arguments here
Little-Acorn
Member Posts: 103 ✭✭
Oral arguments are concluded. And the transcript is already posted!
Damn, those guys are fast! 110 pages, including a huge index! Very cool. Machine-generated index, I'm sure.
See it at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf .
Damn, those guys are fast! 110 pages, including a huge index! Very cool. Machine-generated index, I'm sure.
See it at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf .
Comments
Wonder how many people will actually read through it. It is not easy I am only half way and it has been 20 minutes.
I have seen better arguments and discussions right here on Gun Broker.
+1 HB
Read the whole thing and am moderately encouraged. Pretty clear that even the anti gun people were having a very hard time getting around the "shall not be infringed" part. The part about not being appropriate for civilians was discussed and they were having a hard time even banning machine guns. The argument stemmed from the fact that arms that an army or national guard unit are those needed for a well regulated militia and the arms we have a right to bear flows from that understanding. The most liberal members, Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg all spoke in terms that lead me to believe that this case will be decided in terms that confirm the right as we believe it should be.
All that being said, the door is being left open for regulation by municipalities, states, etc. though they will be harder pressed to maintain them if this case is decided rightly. They were also quite explicit in mentioning that 42 states have constitutional requirements guarranteeing gun ownership.
I predict that the DC ban will be struck down.
The cast of characters:
** First is the bonehead arguing Washington DC's anti-gun position.
** Next is the stupid a-hole from the Fed, offering a half-assed argument that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, but that that "right" is subject to major government regulation.
** Then you have the esteemed and purportedly "pro-gun" lawyer, supposedly arguing for Amendment II. He argues also that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms.....
However, he bent over (and I mean bent over) and absolutely and unequivocally stated multiple times that certain "types" of guns ("machine guns and "plastic" guns designed to defeat metal detectors) were subject to intense restriction and "militia arms", protected by Amendment II, differed from those which could be "authorized" for "civilian use/purposes".
He also strongly stated that many forms of government restriction and regulation were clearly permitted by Amendment II.
______________________
I also read with great interest the questions posed by the various Justices. It is clear where the left wing of the SCOTUS is going to rule. What is intensely disturbing is that the Chief Justice and the supposed "strict constructionists" are asking leading questions that indicate they feel government regulation of firearms is authorized and a proper thing.
__________________________
NOBODY made any mention of the real meaning of the Second, e.g. preserving the ability of America's citizens to resist tyranny from their own government. "Self-defense in the home", "militia use" and the infrequent "hunting argument" were the mentioned uses that would be permitted IF the Second stands.
____________________________
All parties seemed to be arguing the same basic position, only differing in the extent of that position. That position is that the government is authorized to severely regulate firearms.
____________________________
The only wild card I can see are the multiple briefs which were filed that are supposed to be supportive of the real meaning of Amendment II.
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
+1 HB
Read the whole thing and am moderately encouraged. Pretty clear that even the anti gun people were having a very hard time getting around the "shall not be infringed" part. The part about not being appropriate for civilians was discussed and they were having a hard time even banning machine guns. The argument stemmed from the fact that arms that an army or national guard unit are those needed for a well regulated militia and the arms we have a right to bear flows from that understanding. The most liberal members, Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg all spoke in terms that lead me to believe that this case will be decided in terms that confirm the right as we believe it should be.
All that being said, the door is being left open for regulation by municipalities, states, etc. though they will be harder pressed to maintain them if this case is decided rightly. They were also quite explicit in mentioning that 42 states have constitutional requirements guaranteeing gun ownership.
I predict that the DC ban will be struck down.
OK, after reading it, I have to admit I'm not totally stressed that we're gonna get something.
But I have to agree, although very legalistic, some of the pro-gun arguments were a little featherweight. Not too bad overall, though.
"The most liberal members, Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg"
THESE people worry me though.
I just finished the entire thing. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been sold out IMO.
The cast of characters:
** First is the bonehead arguing Washington DC's anti-gun position.
** Next is the stupid a-hole from the Fed, offering a half-assed argument that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, but that that "right" is subject to major government regulation.
** Then you have the esteemed and purportedly "pro-gun" lawyer, supposedly arguing for Amendment II. He argues also that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms..... However, he bent over (and I mean bent over) and absolutely and unequivocally stated multiple times that certain "types" of guns ("machine guns and "plastic" guns designed to defeat metal detectors) were subject to intense restriction for "civilian use/purposes". He also strongly stated that many forms of government restriction and regulation were clearly permitted by Amendment II.
I also read with great interest the questions posed by the various Justices. It is clear where the left wing of the SCOTUS is going to rule. What is intensely disturbing is that the Chief Justice and the supposed "strict constructionists" are asking leading questions that indicate they feel government regulation of firearms is authorized and a proper thing.
NOBODY made any mention of the real meaning of the Second, e.g. preserving the ability of America's citizens to resist tyranny from their own government. "Self-defense in the home", "militia use" and the infrequent "hunting argument" were the mentioned uses that would be permitted IF the Second stands.
All parties seemed to be arguing the same basic position, only differing in the extent of that position. That position is that the government is authorized to severely regulate firearms.
The only wild card I can see are the multiple briefs which were filed that are supposed to be supportive of the real meaning of Amendment II.
I disagree. The subject was aired pretty thoroughly with different justices taking different sides of the argument to better understand, particularly the militia clause. Betcha there is an affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms. It will stand.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I just finished the entire thing. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been sold out IMO.
The cast of characters:
** First is the bonehead arguing Washington DC's anti-gun position.
** Next is the stupid a-hole from the Fed, offering a half-assed argument that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, but that that "right" is subject to major government regulation.
** Then you have the esteemed and purportedly "pro-gun" lawyer, supposedly arguing for Amendment II. He argues also that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms..... However, he bent over (and I mean bent over) and absolutely and unequivocally stated multiple times that certain "types" of guns ("machine guns and "plastic" guns designed to defeat metal detectors) were subject to intense restriction for "civilian use/purposes". He also strongly stated that many forms of government restriction and regulation were clearly permitted by Amendment II.
I also read with great interest the questions posed by the various Justices. It is clear where the left wing of the SCOTUS is going to rule. What is intensely disturbing is that the Chief Justice and the supposed "strict constructionists" are asking leading questions that indicate they feel government regulation of firearms is authorized and a proper thing.
NOBODY made any mention of the real meaning of the Second, e.g. preserving the ability of America's citizens to resist tyranny from their own government. "Self-defense in the home", "militia use" and the infrequent "hunting argument" were the mentioned uses that would be permitted IF the Second stands.
All parties seemed to be arguing the same basic position, only differing in the extent of that position. That position is that the government is authorized to severely regulate firearms.
The only wild card I can see are the multiple briefs which were filed that are supposed to be supportive of the real meaning of Amendment II.
I disagree. The subject was aired pretty thoroughly with different justices taking different sides of the argument to better understand, particularly the militia clause. Betcha there is an affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms. It will stand.
I am not making the argument that the Second Amendment will "fall", or cease to be. I also believe that the DC ban will be found to be unconstitutional.
What I am referring to is that the Second Amendment will be ruled to secure an "individual" right (read privilege) to keep and bear arms, however, the ruling will absolutely state that government can and should regulate firearms to a large degree.
You can kiss any ruling in favor of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" goodbye.
I predict that one of our most basic, fundamental rights and the most important amendment in our Bill of Rights, will be found to be subject to intense government regulation.
THAT is not the ruling that a constitutionally motivated and restrained SCOTUS should reach, but reach it they will, IMO.
Unless you read something I did not, where did you see any of those arguing the merits of the case take a "shall not be infringed" stance?
Did you not see that all the arguing parties consistently conceded that government had the right and duty to "regulate" (read infringe), regardless of the "standard they apply, e.g. "reasonable regulation" "reasonable restriction" etc?
Did you not see that every justice who asked any questions touched on this ability, or duty of government to regulate Amendment II, at least to some extent?
Therefore my opinion that we were sold out.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I disagree that right is viewed as a privilege if it is at all constrained. It was constrained as early as the 30's with the ban on machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
What I am referring to is that the Second Amendment will be ruled to secure an "individual" right (read privilege) to keep and bear arms, however, the ruling will absolutely state that government can and should regulate firearms to a large degree.
That is the feeling I got- which pretty much makes the second amendment as irrelevant as it was before.
"you have the right to bear arms, but the government can regulate that right"= Translation- The government can continue to do whatever it likes with respect to regulating firearms-the only difference is the holier than though supreme court has stated that there is a right to bear arms somewhere-perhaps in a court brief, a magazine article, or a book, but certainly nowhere in the real world.
This is a perfect example of how the bill of rights has lost its original meaning. THe bill of rights, is not a bill of rights at all. It was meant to be a BILL OF PROHIBITIONS, prohibitions placed on the government.
The second amendment does not bestow rights on the people, it PROHIBITS the government from meddling with the right to keep and bear arms. Any "regulation" is meddling, pure and simple, and the amendment quite clearly prohibits meddling when it comes to guns. To have a bunch of judges decide what kind of regulating is acceptable is ludicrous, and unconstitutional.
lt: I did read about the restraints that were discussed. They were trying to find the outlines of that restraint which was not clear. As was said, there are restraints on the first amendment, libel being an example or shouting fire in a crowded auditorium. The first amendment is constantly being tested and defined concerning so-called "hate speech" and campus speech codes. So too, once the 2nd amendment is defined broadly as an individual right the rulling will be used in the testing of laws in many of the more restrictive states. I believe you will see more challenges to the restraints in CA, MD, MA and others.
I disagree that right is viewed as a privilege if it is at all constrained. It was constrained as early as the 30's with the ban on machine guns and sawed off shotguns.
I highlighted/underlined some points you made above. These are examples of previous unconstitutional thought and actions, approved/sanctioned by the SCOTUS.
As to your final comment about a right -vs- a privilege....government was expressly prohibited from infringing on the RTKBA, period. This was largely understood until the examples you quote, which are among the first unconstitutional restrictions on the RTKBA by our blessed government.
At that point in our nations history, Amendment II was dealt a death blow and much of America unwittingly conceded that ownership/possession/use of certain firearms was a privilege, not a right. That path, once taken, has been beaten down as if by a herd of elephants charging toward ever more restrictions on the RTKBA.
This ruling, if it turns out as it appears certain to, will merely focus and continue that stampede by government.
I agree with part of your post though, in the sense that once the SCOTUS rules that there is an "individual right" to keep and bear arms (like we didn't already know that) "some" legal challenges to "some" gun-control laws will result.
My focus is on the seeming unanimous agreement amongst all the parties arguing the case, that government has the duty and authority to regulate firearms, in direct violation of Amendment II.
As Salzo stated, such a ruling would be unconstitutional to anyone who can read, understand and reason. The Bill of Rights was absolutely put into place to restrain government from restricting and meddling in certain fundamental activities which were deliberately enumerated and reserved for a free people.
This is shaping up to be a textbook example of government eroding a fundamental right....in plain view for all to see AND being accepted as a triumph by most.
As I stated in my first post, there are still some wild cards in play.
Amicus briefs were filed, many taking a well researched "strict constitutional" position. These may have some degree of influence in the final written ruling.
My prediction is that the SCOTUS will ultimately rule that the individual has the "right" to keep and bear arms, but that the SCOTUS will specify and outline multiple areas where government can infringe on that "right" (read privilege).
Some "reasonableness" standard, authorizing government infringement/regulation, will be mentioned, or some standard of restriction based on the "public good".
Once this is done, there is zero chance to get back Amendment II as it was intended.
This was America's chance to win a victory for individual rights, personal freedoms and restricting governments power. A constitutional ruling would have set the nation back on a course to Constitutional Governance.
It seems as if we are pending a major failure in that area.
Everyone be happy and whoop it up that you have an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, all the while as everyone "whoops it up", Liberty's Teeth are being pulled out by the roots.[V]
It seems as if we are pending a major failure in that area.
Everyone be happy and whoop it up that you have an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, all the while as everyone "whoops it up", Liberty's Teeth are being pulled out by the roots.[V]
[/quote]
[quote
It seems as if we are pending a major failure in that area.
Everyone be happy and whoop it up that you have an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, all the while as everyone "whoops it up", Liberty's Teeth are being pulled out by the roots.[V]
Okay, what then? I hear all of the absolutist talk, which I agree with, but here we are. What do you propose we do? I say, prepare yourself for what might come for your home family and friends. I also say, fight in the public arena with every last breath because we still have the first amendment for speech and association.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
[quote
It seems as if we are pending a major failure in that area.
Everyone be happy and whoop it up that you have an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, all the while as everyone "whoops it up", Liberty's Teeth are being pulled out by the roots.[V]
Okay, what then? I hear all of the absolutist talk, which I agree with, but here we are. What do you propose we do? I say, prepare yourself for what might come for your home family and friends. I also say, fight in the public arena with every last breath because we still have the first amendment for speech and association.
No argument with that Matchshot.
I am merely bluntly pointing out how I see the SCOTUS ruling. There is little we can do but be vigilant.
What laws do you see being overturned (other than the DC ban) by a SCOTUS ruling recognizing an "individual right", but also authorizing government regulation/restrictions of that "right" (read privilege)?
The oral arguments pretty much put to bed the idea of the ban on machine-guns being ruled unconstitutional. If it is constitutional to restrict those, would it not also be constitutional to restrict other firearms such as military style EBR's?
The oral arguments spawned the idea, which seemed to have taken root, that "certain arms" should be restricted from "civilian use". What "arms" do you suppose this means?
Will we be able to dispense with background checks before purchasing?
Will waiting periods for some disappear?
Can we do away with the FFL requirement?
Will we regain the ability to personally get firearms in the mail again?
Will we regain the ability to have a gun with a 15 inch barrel as opposed to one an inch or so longer only?
Can we carry without permits after this ruling?
Shall we be permitted to have loaded guns in our vehicle depending on where you live?
Do you think we will be allowed to carry on school campus' with this new ruling?
Serious questions and I could use some uplifting information.
Right now, I see that glass as "almost empty", not "almost full"...pessimism rules the day so cheer me up.[8)]
The Good Captain has it nailed dead ..sad to say.
We lose.
I expected a decision affirming the power of government to ban whatever it wished.
They are smarter then that. Even in this emasculated, wimp-infested, Socialist country ..that would not fly...and they knew it.
So they codify into permanence the insane premise that the Founders intended the government to restrict the means of control of that very structure.
There can be no wonder at all why there is little discussion of the intent to control tyranny.for the whole sham is ALL about tyranny.and the lawyer arguing the case `for' the Second Amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
More properly.he is a Beast disciple.not a Constitutionalist.
Frankly, with the speed of disintegration of nearly every aspect of American life.I think perhaps the decision means little any more.that events will occur soon enough, driven by the need to finish the job of merging America into a Socialist Republic of North America..as to make the decision moot.
permamenc
My predictions and opinion as to the form that the ruling will ultimately come in, is based on previous government action, clear government intentions and the oral arguments/Q&A that took place.
These factors seem to establish a clear indicator as to the final result.
As I mentioned, there are still wild cards in play, e.g. the Amicus Briefs that have been filed and which will arguably be considered.
We shall see.....
The lawyers for both sides, and all of the justices have agreed so far on one thing - the government has the right to institute a certain amount of control. How much "control" the SCOTUS will okay is still up in the air, but it will likely be at least as much as now.
This Bush SCOTUS is, and always will be, pro- big government, pro- big business, and anti individual rights. Just look at their previous decisions - always in favor of business and government, and always against individuals.
Did you vote for Bush? Shame on you. You've screwed us all.
This Bush SCOTUS is, and always will be, pro- big government, pro- big business, and anti individual rights. Just look at their previous decisions - always in favor of business and government, and always against individuals.
Did you vote for Bush? Shame on you. You've screwed us all.
That is just ridiculous. I do not in anyway support Bush, or his supreme court noninees-but to infer that voting for someone else, would have "unscrewed us_- that is just regodmamndiculous.. Yeah things would have been a helluva lot better if Kerry was doing the appointing. We need more Ginsbergs, Breyers, etc- they are the staunch defenders of individual rights. [:o)]