History in the making.
Reports on oral argument from SCOTUSblog:
“Based just on the questioning, which can prove inaccurate, the Court is divided along ideological lines in Heller, with Justice Kennedy taking a strong view that the “operative clause” of the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service that guarantees the right to hunt and engage in self-defense. If the oral argument line up were to hold when the Court votes, the Court will recognize an individual right to bear arms that will not be seriously constrained by military service of any kind. There was a seemingly broad consensus that the right would not extend to machine guns, plastic guns that could evade metal detectors, and the like. There was relatively little disccusion of the trigger lock provision. Justice Breyer seemingly sought to pick up a fifth vote for a narrower reading of the Second Amendment by attempting to tie the question of the reasonableness of the regulation to whether the challenged statute left individuals with the ability to possess weapons that could be used in milita service. “
and
” an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the decisive vote.”
Proverbs 21:1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
I pray that these judges will hear their conscience reminding them of their Oath of Office to correctly interpret the Constitution.....which they are bound to uphold, that they may be found faithful and honorable, in Jesus’ Name amen.
Anyone here still want Obama or Hillary to nominate the next few Supreme Court Justices?
If the 2d Amendment wins, it will be a 5-4 on vote. Period. The liberals seek our guns. If by law, theft, or threat. They want them and intend to get them. If ANY one of the Bill of Rights are unConstitutional according to this bunch, such as defeating and taking away our right to possess, then the other Bills are no good either. Freedom of speech, press, religion should go out the window also. Of course, the left would love to control all of those also.
If true and it turns out to be a 5-4 ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment as written, then to all on FR with BDS, remember to BLAME BUSH!!
Machineguns are militia weapons too ladies and gentlemen.
God reward Justice Kennedy for standing up for the Constitution as well as the solid four.
Too bad we can’t look forward to replacing one of the Bolshevik left with another conservative in the next term.
After reading the transcript I’m cautiously optomistic.
I pray the 2nd Amendment will be correctly be ruled as an individual right and the lower court’s ruling will be upheld.
The questioning provides hope, but we must also remember not to read too much into the questioning. The justices are often playing devil’s advocate with their questions. The individual right to bear arms is brain-dead obvious to us, but having the issue before SCOTUS still provides some nail-biting angst.
MM (in TX)
I wonder how we could have our revolution to throw off said government as is stated in the Declaration, if we don’t have guns outside the military?
************
....With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment (and with Justice Clarence Thomas, though silent on Tuesday, having intimated earlier that he may well be sympathetic to that view), Kennedy’s inclinations might make him — once more — the holder of the decisive vote.”
************
On a previous Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion stating, “...the Second Amendment protects an individual right...”. So, I would consider Justice Thomas to be solidly on the side of individual rights.
There was really no new information in the oral briefs. You can bet Thomas had already read *all* of the written briefs. We shall hear from his pen I'm sure, hopefully as author of the majority opinion, but if not that surely as concurring with it, and expanding upon it.