POLITICS - D.C. and the Supremes

1886 · Post by **1886** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:12 pm

I have read some and heard some as well. Anyone with any insights they care to share? 1886.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:16 pm

Since preambles seem to carry some weight,

I'll preface my remarks by saying, I ain't a lawyer, nor any great scholar, have not studied the personalities or inclinations of the Justices; and the only study of law I've done has been penal and traffic codes, and dabbled in contract & construction law as it applied to public agencies as an investigator. So, that outta da way... It's anybodies guess!

Mine happens to be based on reading the transcript that was posted yesterday. From the questions asked and answers given; even to include a little guidance from a Justice or two; anyone who thinks the District Appeals decision will be fully upheld will be severely dissappointed. But, neither do I believe it will be overturned outright.

My prediction is that there will be a widely split decision, say 7-2, but; their stances will be fairly close. I think they will decide for an individual right as common and personal protection are not mutually exclusive terms. However, they also find that "shall not be infringed" is not an opened phrase; especially as none of the oral arguments suggested such; therefore "reasonable" restrictions shall apply and be deemed legal. The DC laws "as constructed" may very well be deemed unconstitutional.

That, my friends is my hope and opinion; and is most likely, the BEST outcome that can be hoped for.

rimrock · Post by **rimrock** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:24 pm

I've read the transcript of the oral argument and the brief submitted by Gun Owners of America. Seems the questioning by the justices may point to a decision allowing "reasonable" gun regulations, such as needing a license for machine guns or rejecting mentally unstable people from gun ownership. also, they probably will not address gun regs from other states as the Solicitor General wanted, and they most likely will overrule the total ban of handgun ownership in D.C. But, they will allow D.C. to impose gun lock requirements for loaded guns if D.C. chooses to try to pass new, constitutional laws.

FWIW,IMHO, D.C.'s attorney did not seem convinced of his own argument as the rigorous questioning quickly illustrated. The Solicitor General offered the most polished discussion with the justices which was expected since he argues cases before the justices more frequently than most other lawyers. I didn't feel that the gun owner's lawyer strongly advocated against the anti's statistics and conceded too much on the machine gun issue. He could have pointed out that actual military weapons were not relevant to the total ban on handguns for the self defense issues for the statutes being challenged.

The transcript plainly illustrated the ridiculous position of D.C. on the total ban. Out of one side of its lawyer's mouth, the city said everyone had a right to self defense even with firearms. But, its lawyer responded to questioning by the justices that it was in fact illegal to carry a handgun from one room to another within the same house. Several of the justices simply could not understand how the lawyer could say the city supported a person's right of self defense when the city expected a homeowner to 1.) turn on a bedside light, 2.) put on reading glasses, 3.) manipulate the combination of the gun lock, 4.) load the handgun, and then finally 5.) subdue the threatening person despite the lawyer's statement that he personally successfully completed steps 1-4 in 3 seconds in the daylight (of course without a threat being present also).

The transcript contained much discussion of whether there are 2 rights --one to keep arms and one to bear arms (to me, the most interesting historical discussion in the whole transcript), and whether the opening phrase of the 2A just reaffirmed the right of states, as expressed in 1A, clauses 15 &16 to have a militia not subject to control by the federal government. As was pointed out in the discussion, there was "reasonable" gun control even in the early years of the republic with laws preventing the carrying of firearms (long guns) and pistols in an open market.

hfcable · Post by **hfcable** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:42 pm

i think originally these were two separate rights and it probably relates to old english common law; a coat of arms was essentially a 'carry permit' that allowed persons to go out publicly ,bearing arms, and not be accused of treason/insurrection. to appear outside ones home, bearing arms without a coat of arms, issued by the king, , was a capital offense in the middle ages. so, our bill of rights, made it possible to not only own the arms [keep them] but to bear them out publicly without additional permission being necessary.

Post by **Old Savage** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:43 pm

I believe but am not sure that it was Justice Berger who said the seocnd ammendment contains two rights: the right to keep and bear arms and the right to form militias.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:45 pm

I haven't had a chance to read to argument presented yet - work was too intense this week. My bet though, based on previous SCOTUS decisions, is they will parse this narrowly, avoiding ruling on the Second Amendment as a whole, and just stating that the DC ban does infringe on the right, but that reasonable restrictions are permitted. DC will then go to their "plan B" which will be to pass a bunch of "reasonable restrictions", all of which will net out to the same effect of a total ban.

When you live in a place run by leftist morons, you should not be surprised that they live up to that billing. Case in point, DC, CA, IL, etc.

PaulB · Post by **PaulB** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:31 am

Yes, it will be another mushy Miller decision that both sides will be able to quote in support of their arguments. Full employment for lawyers and bureaucrats, and little better than that. Pessimism is certainly called for.

A shame the pro-gun side gave in on "reasonable restrictions". One wonders what the founders would have had to add to the 2nd Amendment, for today's court to read the prohibition as absolute. Maybe something like, "We really, really mean it"?

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:59 am

If I ever get my hands on a time machine I know exactly where I will go.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:13 pm

Jeeps wrote:If I ever get my hands on a time machine I know exactly where I will go.

Yah, I'd take a couple dozen 1892s in .357 and a few thousand rounds of ammunition and convince Gallatin to support the PA farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion...

Then have Hamilton - and maybe Washington - executed for Treason against the new Republic...

Idahoser · Post by **Idahoser** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:32 pm

Somewhere... maybe SAF... had the audio transcript. I listened.

Like every other subject today, "the right thing" is ridiculous and "nobody is suggesting that".

They understand "the right thing" and will NOT do it. It will be mush.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:53 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:
Jeeps wrote:If I ever get my hands on a time machine I know exactly where I will go.
Yah, I'd take a couple dozen 1892s in .357 and a few thousand rounds of ammunition and convince Gallatin to support the PA farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion...

Then have Hamilton - and maybe Washington - executed for Treason against the new Republic...

I meant Philly in 1776 to let them know how illiterate our politicians are today,
then off to buy stock in microsoft so I can have a better collection of tin foil hats.

But yes, you can borrow it, just return it with no scratches ok.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:56 pm

Jeeps wrote:
Old Ironsights wrote:
Jeeps wrote:If I ever get my hands on a time machine I know exactly where I will go.
Yah, I'd take a couple dozen 1892s in .357 and a few thousand rounds of ammunition and convince Gallatin to support the PA farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion...

Then have Hamilton - and maybe Washington - executed for Treason against the new Republic...
I meant Philly in 1776 to let them know how illiterate our politicians are today,...

They wouldn't believe you. Maybe Jefferson would, but the rest would consider you a madman for predicting that people could misrepresent the Constitution like that.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:15 pm

They wouldn't believe you. Maybe Jefferson would, but the rest would consider you a madman for predicting that people could misrepresent the Constitution like that.

We could snatch a few & have them testify for the SC.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:24 pm

Leverdude wrote:
They wouldn't believe you. Maybe Jefferson would, but the rest would consider you a madman for predicting that people could misrepresent the Constitution like that.
We could snatch a few & have them testify for the SC.

Most of them would individually challenge the current occupants to a Duel.

Hmmmm.

I think I'm going back to ork on my Time Machine Project and order some nice matched dueling pistols...

donw · Post by **donw** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:50 pm

i'm not "holding my breath" awaiting this decision.

more than likely, it will be a compromise of some sort as has been stated here earlier.

even if it's ruled as being unconstitutional, the dimwits from d.c. will assert their right to "reasonable" laws. who should determine "what is reasonable?"...i say let the citizens of d.c. determine, NOT the lawyers/legislators.

you guys ought to live here in kaliphorniastan...now there is proposal to make us get a permit to purchase ammo!

i don't know about you guys, but this is one gun owner who's so darned sick and tired of legislators trying their level best to screw us, i'm willing to do almost anything it takes to get rid of all of them! (within legal limits, of course) we need to launch as vicious an attack on them by way of emails, faxes, phone calls and written letters that they launch on us by way of proposed legislation!

DBW · Post by **DBW** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:46 pm

I don't think that the eventual ruling will be what we want it to be... a complete affirmation that we view the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms.

I'm currently reading The Anti-Federalist Papers put out by Signet. It appears from just what little I've read that the fears the Anti-Federalists have came true since the Constitution's ratification. Bigger government, imperialistic intent, weakened individual states and reduced individual rights.

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:49 pm

rimrock wrote:The transcript contained much discussion of whether there are 2 rights --one to keep arms and one to bear arms (to me, the most interesting historical discussion in the whole transcript)

I downloaded but haven't had time to read the transcript. The "bear arms" phrase has been studied, and there is some evidence this did not mean "carry guns around" but rather "serve in the militia." If so, then "bear arms" would mean the feds couldn't prevent people from serving in their state militias. However, common sense indicates such a provision is more than a little bit redundant since the militia is part of the Constitution and was understood to mean "the people."

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:11 pm

DBW wrote:I don't think that the eventual ruling will be what we want it to be... a complete affirmation that we view the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms.

I'm currently reading The Anti-Federalist Papers put out by Signet. It appears from just what little I've read that the fears the Anti-Federalists have came true since the Constitution's ratification. Bigger government, imperialistic intent, weakened individual states and reduced individual rights.

Yep. Hamilton's Big Government - exactly as feared.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:09 am

I wonder if they will ever actually study the "shall not be infringed" part of it.

I would really like it if they could explain that part to me.