View Full Version : Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of gun rights

03-18-2008, 08:19 PM
March 18th, 2008: Oral arguments were made on this day for District of Columbia vs Dick Anthony Heller.

Written Transcripts (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf)

downloadable mp3's of oral arguments (http://www.downrange.tv/rkba/dc-v-heller.htm)

Walter E. Dellinger, arguing on behalf of the D.C.

Paul Drew Clement, arguing on behalf of the United States, supporting a personal right to keep guns, but opposing a decision to rule the handgun ban unconstitutional.

Alan Gura, arguing on behalf of Dick Anthony Heller

I've listened to the arguements while following along on the transcript and I have to say that I'm pretty much in awe of the sheer intelligence of these justices, even those who I dont agree with. This case was so important that they allowed the oral argument to run a lot longer than the usual hour.

Today, for the first time EVER, the supreme court was finally forced to interpret the 2nd amendment. It amazes me that this amendment was left untouched by the courts and almost without precedent for such a long time. For many decades the popular liberal arguement has been that the constitution does not provide an individual right to own a gun, it merely establishes that the states can set up militias. Some states or the feds can choose to allow gun ownership, but it isnt a right. Its always tricky to presume to know what the court ruling will be from the oral arguements, but at this point it is probably very safe to say that this arguement is now over. Done, dead, finito. The justices have given a very clear signal that they are ready to rule that the 2nd amendment does guarantee a personal right to own guns.

When Justice Kennedy stated flat-out that he believed the amendment gave a personal right to own guns only about 10-15 minutes into the oral arguements, the lawyer representing the D.C. recognized that he had at least 5 votes against him, gave that line of attack up, and fell back to the 2nd arguement that if there is a right to own guns, then the handgun ban is still a reasonable restriction of that right. (Heck, we might even have a 6-3 or higher majority in favor of the right, even Ginsberg didnt bother to seriously question it, she was more interested in arguing that the handgun ban was a reasonable restriction for D.C.)

On the question of the personal right to have guns, it seems the only question left is what restrictions on that right are reasonable. Ban certain types of guns (as in D.C.)? Trigger locks? Just require reasonable licensing and competency standards and thats it like Heller's lawyer was asking for? The justices have also signalled (to my understanding anyway) that they are very uncomfortable with the opposite extreme of having no restrictions at all like some purist libertarians advocate, so we'll probably be debating reasonable restrictions for the next 10+ years. Even the first amendment has a few restrictions, we just need to figure out how high of a standard the legislative body must meet to apply a restriction of the 2nd amendment right.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 08:21 PM
I'll hold off until the anal arguments.

03-18-2008, 08:26 PM
I would hope, now US SC is more balanced

Mr. Laz
03-18-2008, 08:36 PM
i demand my right to own a nuclear gun.

Tits McGee
03-18-2008, 08:52 PM
Tell that to Marquis Booker.

03-18-2008, 09:25 PM
i demand my right to own a nuclear gun.

I think that'll qualify as "reasonable restrictions".

Especially if the Justices read any of your posts. :p

DJ's left nut
03-18-2008, 09:33 PM
For what it's worth, I'd be shocked if 'reasonable restriction' is the standard they use.

I have no idea how the court can apply anything but strict scrutiny to this. How can the court declare that this isn't a fundamental right? It has its own damn amendment. As such, DC would have to prove that this ban is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. In other words, that there is no other way to achieve the purpose this bill attempts to effectuate. The purpose of the bill is to protect citizens from gun violence. Additional police presence, additional education, stiffer criminal sanctions, etc... there are a ton of ways to protect from gun violence that do not restrict constitutional rights.

This thing was as easy a case as I've seen. It'll be overtuned, possibly unanimously.