Posted on 03/04/2008 6:53:13 PM PST by 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.
My prediction is that this case will turn out to be nothing. They will decide that the 2nd amendment does guarantee an individual’s rights, but that those rights are also subject to “reasonable restrictions”. That way they don’t really have to make a decision.
How do you reconcile reasonable restrictions with a right that shall not be infringed? That will be a neat trick without trashing "Miller," IMHO.
In the Founders' time, the Bill of Rights was understood to restrict the powers of the federal government. It wasn't applied wholesale to the states until the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation.
Well, it's obvious that they will never take it literally. That would give us the right to own our own WMD's if we so chose. One set of reasonable restrictions that I don't think anyone would object to would be a prohibition on strategic weapons, (ICBM's, bombers, etc...). While these are arms, they are not weapons that one would associate with a militia. Personally, I would draw the line at explosive ordinance and crew served weapons, but it's very hard to argue that those aren't legitimate militia weapons as well.
So common sense dictates that if they find an individual right they will have to draw the line somewhere or permit the government to do it for them and somehow I doubt they will be nearly as lenient as I would be.
I am with you on the 6-3 or 7-2 in our favor. Lawrence Tribe has given the libs on the court some covering fire.
Some of us have bayonets.
The gun-banners are unarmed, so their warpath is sprinkled with rose petals. I wouldn't worry about 'em.
When the SHTF I'm going to Texas, find humblegunner & friends, and help water that tree of Liberty.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
I don’t know about you, but I’d draw the line at WMD. If some guy wants to put 8 Brownings in his P-51 Mustang, I don’t see a reason he can’t do it. If you own a larger than two-seat helo, I don’t see a reason you can’t mount an M60 in it.
Mortars, rockets, M203, GE cannons, all protected under the Second Amendment.
Come on down, and welcome!
We have spare guns, 4WD's and ATV's.
In favor of ... what? An individual right? The DC Circuit Court already ruled that. That the laws in DC are unconstitutional? The DC Circuit Court already ruled that.
Whereabouts in Texas are you “at”?
What date was that written?
If SCOTUS upholds a fundamental individual right, then jurisdictions like Chicago and other places in Illinois that ban handguns will be challenged. But even with strict scrutiny, I wonder if the handgun bans can be overturned.
That animation on your page is incredibly funny.
That would be pretty impressive. Even North American only installed 6.
Early-to-mid ‘90s, I think. I first ran into it in the late 1990s.
The line to draw is most easily around the definitions of “arms” versus other kinds of weapons and “ordnance”. I think it is reasonable to say that the founders used the word “arms” intentionally. Not “weapons” or some such. “Arms” can be understood to mean the sort of weapons that are carried and used by a single soldier. It wouldn’t include cannon or heavy weapons, but it would include whatever is typically carried by an infantryman.
Not sure how they’d have looked at grenades, though. I might guess that the founders wouldn’t consider them arms. But I’m willing to negotiate.
From a practical standpoint there simply will be certain “reasonable” restrictions however. Prisoners *in prison* do not have a right to arms. Persons certified as dangerously insane should be denied arms, as well as liberty. I’m OK with convicted felons being denied as long as there is a process for reinstatement. Some restrictions are more reasonable than others. Anything beyond these should be fought, and aggressively.
Nomatter what the court says, I think it is doubtful that we’ll get machine guns back, even though I think we should under the 2nd amendment. We’ll likely just have to live with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.