Justices to release audio in guns case (D.C. v. Heller)

San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Mar. 04, 2008 | NA

[neverdem]

Associated Press

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights. The case from the District of Columbia could resolve whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns and, if so, whether the government may still strictly regulate gun ownership, including a ban on handguns.

The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush.

The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection.

The court records arguments and ordinarily releases them at the end of each term. With television cameras barred from the court and reporters prohibited from using tape recorders in the courtroom, the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[neverdem]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

May God have mercy. Some folks could go on the warpath.

[Resolute Conservative]

I am ready.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Am I wrong to read into this that the Court realizes the importance of this case to large numbers of average American citizens who are looking for them to uphold the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment? And how far-reaching the effect of their ultimate decision will be all over the U.S.?

[MHGinTN]

The decision will come back as a 5 to 4 (Kennedy will uphold citizen’s rights, with Alito, Thomas, Roberts & Scalia).

[humblegunner]

The case from the District of Columbia could resolve whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns

The issue has long been settled.

If they want to change it, fine.

If so, please start in Texas. We remain ready to "discuss" the issue of disarmament.

[PGalt]

Life and its necessary corollary...

BUMP-TO-THE-TOP!

[neverdem]

Am I wrong to read into this that the Court realizes the importance of this case to large numbers of average American citizens who are looking for them to uphold the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment? And how far-reaching the effect of their ultimate decision will be all over the U.S.?

I believe yes to both questions, but I think they will limit it to just the D.C. question as they have already framed it.

[coloradan]

That’s how I read it. They KNOW it’s a huge, B.F.D. to a lot of people, which is why they’re releasing same-day audio. So, they’re at least already on notice that a lot of people will be paying very close attention. (Although, more at the decision than the argument.)

[coloradan]

Although it’s a tough genie to keep in the bottle. Should they determine that DC folx have a 2A right, it will be hard to argue no one else does, and if they rule the DC folx lack any 2A right, it will be hard to argue that anyone else has one either. So I don’t think they can keep the scope of the decision as narrow as they might wish.

[marktwain]

This is a good sign.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Supreme Court will decide if the People’s Rights mean exactly what it says or if it means the People’s Rights really means the Government’s ability to tax, regulate, ban and/or confiscate.

My son and I are researching the American Revolution. The Revolution didn’t start on July 4, 1776. It actually began around 1760. That’s when the Brits moved troops off the frontier and into the cities to deal with the “unrest”.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t know how to read a simple sentence, we might have the date of their decision seared into our memories.

[neverdem]

"The decision will come back as a 5 to 4 (Kennedy will uphold citizen’s rights, with Alito, Thomas, Roberts & Scalia). "

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma.

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

I believe it could be 7 - 2.

[marktwain]

If the court affirms a meaningful individual right, it will be a major legacy of the Bush administration.

[marktwain]

I believe it could be 7 - 2.

---

You may be right. I hope so.

[sam_paine]

Hope so!

[Blood of Tyrants]

They STILL don’t get it. The Constitution doesn’t “give” rights to anyone!

[BGHater]

A legacy indeed. Isn’t his Admin. against Heller on this one, except Cheney?

[wastedyears]

Wait... they’re just deliberating for one day? I thought they were going to release a ruling in a few months?

[Emmett McCarthy]

But wouldn’t that open the federal district courts all over to hear cases and hand down their own decisions in line with that precedent?

[Blood of Tyrants]

If it is 5-4 against Heller, the gun grabbers will be screaming that this is the ultimate word on the 2nd Amendment.

If it comes out 5-4 against DC and upholds the individual right to keep and bear arms, they will be downplaying it as a “split court” and could be overturned sometime in the future.