D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread
- Thread starter Mike40-11
- Start date
- Status
Mike,
That's always a possibility, but they did go to all the trouble to decide to hear the case.
That angle is based on the idea that Heller ignores the Militia clause, but it doesn't. They reconcile them throughout the arguments and amicus curae.
If anything, it's DC who doesn't have a satisfactory answer for that question.
So yeah... we're all worried, but I think the gun-grabbers are even more worried. And rightly so IMO.
That's always a possibility, but they did go to all the trouble to decide to hear the case.
That angle is based on the idea that Heller ignores the Militia clause, but it doesn't. They reconcile them throughout the arguments and amicus curae.
If anything, it's DC who doesn't have a satisfactory answer for that question.
So yeah... we're all worried, but I think the gun-grabbers are even more worried. And rightly so IMO.
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/CSPANDCvHELLER.pdf
Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument For District of Columbia v. Heller
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, C-SPAN will air the Supreme Court oral argument of District of Columbia v. Heller which the Court is scheduled to hear that day. The immediate release of the audio recording of the Court's argument was in response to a request by C-SPAN (Release time is approximately 11:15 A.M.).
The Court will make the recording available to the media soon after the conclusion of the oral argument. The oral argument will air on C-SPAN, and C-SPAN Radio as soon as it is released. The audio recording will also be archived online at www.c-span.org on the “America and the Courts” page.
Since 2000, C-SPAN has regularly made requests to the Supreme Court for immediate release of oral argument recordings for cases that have a heightened public interest. For nearly 20 years, C-SPAN has argued for greater public access to the federal judiciary. C-SPAN’s web site, http://www.c-span.org/camerasinthecourt/timeline.asp, chronicles C-SPAN’s involvement in the issue and features a collection of public statements made by the Justices regarding cameras in the Supreme Court.
About C-SPAN
C-SPAN, the political network of record, was created in 1979 by America's cable companies as a public service. C-SPAN is currently available in 91.7 million households, C-SPAN2 in 84.5 million households, and C-SPAN3 in 15 million households nationwide. C-SPAN Radio is heard nationally on Sirius Satellite and XM Satellite Radio, and in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore area at 90.1 WCSP-FM. For more information, visit www.c-span.org.
Follow the links on http://www.c-span.org/ to hear the audio on TUESDAY 3/18........
U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO C-SPAN’S REQUEST FOR SAME-DAY RELEASE OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN UPCOMING FIREARMS CASE
Chief Justice Roberts Approves Immediate Release of Oral Argument For District of Columbia v. Heller
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, C-SPAN will air the Supreme Court oral argument of District of Columbia v. Heller which the Court is scheduled to hear that day. The immediate release of the audio recording of the Court's argument was in response to a request by C-SPAN (Release time is approximately 11:15 A.M.).
The Court will make the recording available to the media soon after the conclusion of the oral argument. The oral argument will air on C-SPAN, and C-SPAN Radio as soon as it is released. The audio recording will also be archived online at www.c-span.org on the “America and the Courts” page.
Since 2000, C-SPAN has regularly made requests to the Supreme Court for immediate release of oral argument recordings for cases that have a heightened public interest. For nearly 20 years, C-SPAN has argued for greater public access to the federal judiciary. C-SPAN’s web site, http://www.c-span.org/camerasinthecourt/timeline.asp, chronicles C-SPAN’s involvement in the issue and features a collection of public statements made by the Justices regarding cameras in the Supreme Court.
About C-SPAN
C-SPAN, the political network of record, was created in 1979 by America's cable companies as a public service. C-SPAN is currently available in 91.7 million households, C-SPAN2 in 84.5 million households, and C-SPAN3 in 15 million households nationwide. C-SPAN Radio is heard nationally on Sirius Satellite and XM Satellite Radio, and in the Washington, D.C./Baltimore area at 90.1 WCSP-FM. For more information, visit www.c-span.org.
- 30 -
Follow the links on http://www.c-span.org/ to hear the audio on TUESDAY 3/18........
One day more... As concerned as I am about this ruling what really impresses me is the absolute lack of knowledge most people have of the case and its implications for the rest of the COTUS. Turn this amendment into a legal pretzel for social engineering purposes and every other one is likewise susceptible to the same reinterpretation.
I don't remember how much publicity Roe v. Wade got before it was heard by the court but it certainly got plenty afterward. This case has received scant attention from the MSM so far but once it's heard and decided we can be sure it'll be on every front page and in every newscast. I don't even think the outcome is a controlling factor either since the liberal press (printed and broadcast) will be either crowing or crying.
joseph3724
Inactive
Well Said. A loss for the "Pro-Gun" folks in this battle goes a great deal deeper than a disapointment for us. It has been very difficult for me to explain to my friends and family why this case is so very much more important than just guns. I find that if I start off with a conversation about how government can take your property (land, home, ...), and the reasons that they can use to justify it, emotions very quickly go my way. People just assume that government will never do anything not in the best interest of its "subjects".
I beleive this is a good time for this case to be heard. I don't think that waiting is in our best interest. As time passes our numbers dwindle. Fewer fathers pass on their knowledge and interest in the sports that we enjoy. Most of our children are simply not exposed to the shooting sports, or worse, they are convinced at school that guns are evil.
It's easy to take away a right that nobody cares about. And the longer we wait, the easier it will be.
I'd say that the very worst is that the SCOTUS will find an individual's right to keep and bear arms, subject to the person's ability to be included in a militia, subjected to some kind of training, that any gun control is left only to the states, and that federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, that is those not directly affecting the U.S. Armed Forces created and regulated by the Congress. DC isn't a state and is subject to federal control. The case will come down to how the Congress has allowed home rule to function in DC. If the Congress has allowed the DC government to function as its agent, the DC laws will stand, and the SCOTUS leaves things as is. My unlawerly $.02. 
Last edited:
armoredman
New member
Tommorow...
Super Dave
New member
More info can be found at the Courts web site.http://www.scotusblog.com
Last edited:
rwilson452
New member
If the court really goes our way the Executive departments presentation may bite them. As they brought it up the court may feel obliged to mention it in their decision. We should know in late June or July.
Garand Illusion
New member
Panel Discussion on Heller
The link above is to a panel discussion with Dave Kopel (pro 2a) and a couple of anti-gun supposed-expert weasels. It's actually a perfectly fair venue, though it is 2-1 on the panel.
I don't really suggest you watch it, as while I respect the heck our of Dave Kopel he doesn't do a good job for the first hour and the anti-gun guys just hand him his butt. If this were the only debate I ever saw or the only input I had on the subject I would believe that the 2nd amendment really is just a poorly written item protecting the State's rights to limit weapons owned by individuals to those used for National Guard purposes.
I guess Kopel was having a bad day, as they even got away with promoting gun LIBERTY as a racist thing. One ended with "when you picture the person the 2nd amendment protected, don't picture a minute man with his musket, but rather a slave owner."
But ... the interesting part ... when asked by the moderator what they felt the most likely outcome was, even the anti-gun weasels had to agree that chances are there would be an "individual right's" ruling, and the only thing in question was the degree of scrutiny.
That last part was heartening. IT's just sad as I think even I could have confronted these guys with a better debate than Kopel did, and there are those on this board that could have torn them to pieces.
The link above is to a panel discussion with Dave Kopel (pro 2a) and a couple of anti-gun supposed-expert weasels. It's actually a perfectly fair venue, though it is 2-1 on the panel.
I don't really suggest you watch it, as while I respect the heck our of Dave Kopel he doesn't do a good job for the first hour and the anti-gun guys just hand him his butt. If this were the only debate I ever saw or the only input I had on the subject I would believe that the 2nd amendment really is just a poorly written item protecting the State's rights to limit weapons owned by individuals to those used for National Guard purposes.
I guess Kopel was having a bad day, as they even got away with promoting gun LIBERTY as a racist thing. One ended with "when you picture the person the 2nd amendment protected, don't picture a minute man with his musket, but rather a slave owner."
But ... the interesting part ... when asked by the moderator what they felt the most likely outcome was, even the anti-gun weasels had to agree that chances are there would be an "individual right's" ruling, and the only thing in question was the degree of scrutiny.
That last part was heartening. IT's just sad as I think even I could have confronted these guys with a better debate than Kopel did, and there are those on this board that could have torn them to pieces.
They equate gun ownership with an image of a slave owner? 
Well yes, many States enacted GUN PROHIBITION LAWS to keep African Americans from owning firearms. So, the anti-gunners are somewhat siding with the slave owners. Idiots and hypocrites.
Kopel didn't point this irrefutable fact out in his discussion? He must have had a REAL bad day for Godsakes.
My God, how these anti-gunners will stoop to any level to make their ridiculous point. Unbeliveable..... well.... not that unbelievable.
Well yes, many States enacted GUN PROHIBITION LAWS to keep African Americans from owning firearms. So, the anti-gunners are somewhat siding with the slave owners. Idiots and hypocrites.
Kopel didn't point this irrefutable fact out in his discussion? He must have had a REAL bad day for Godsakes.
My God, how these anti-gunners will stoop to any level to make their ridiculous point. Unbeliveable..... well.... not that unbelievable.
We have seen more news articles as the buildup for today's hearing draws near. Expect some few more before the decision is rendered. Afterwards... The media will be rife with articles for a while.Oldphart said:
That is the point I have been making for some time now. Glad someone else "gets it."joseph3724 said:
Not since the Slaughterhouse Cases has the Court read out a portion of the Constitution. Should the Court do this to an actual enumerated right, then nothing and no one will be safe from this point onwards.
That is what this case is ultimately about.
funny comments on Heller
The following was on a US News & World Report Comments Page about the Article in US&WR about the Supreme Court Case on The 2nd Amendment.
Some People should not be allowed to vote.
"The right to own firearms
Although I'm pretty sure that:
1) Most guns are owned by people who don't know how to use them.
2) Most gun owners don't have the emotional or mental stability to be entrusted with firearms.
3) Most guns in private hands are a greater danger to the owners and their families than a protection.
4) The purpose of private gun ownership is mostly to benefit the gun manufacturers and dealers: very little benefit to the gun purchasers.
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
Having said all that, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and like the rest of the constitution, it depends on us citizens to exercise our rights responsibly and to protect ourselves from those among us who would improperly exploit those rights or violate them, without us abridging those constitutional rights.
Protecting ourselves against those who use guns to hurt their fellow citizens is just a part of living in the real world, like protecting ourselves against every other kind of violence, druggies, sexual predators, abusers, thieves, swindlers, road rage, etc etc ad infinitum. Like it or not, we just have to let everyone have their guns, and to the best of our abilities stay alert and on guard in case some are used to threaten and hurt innocent citizens.
Charles Sears of OR
Mar 07, 2008 18:12:17 PM"
Comments on above Post
"Are you serious??? These are probably some of the most ignorant statements I have heard in my entire life, Charles. So you're saying that the 100 million gun owners in the US are all criminals? And we're all emotionally immature? Guess we better build more prisons then, huh? And there's no benefit to the private ownership of a firearm? Well Charles, the next time you have to call the police to your fantasy world when someone is breaking into your house, you let me know how long you have to wait. I'm sure it'll seem like an eternity. In my area, you get put on hold when you call 911. Maybe you need to wake up to reality, Charles. But I do appreciate you calling me, many of my friends, all of my family members, as well as police officers, and members of the military, emotionally unstable idiots. You think about that next time you need help from the police.
Jon Rider of NV
Mar 09, 2008 21:51:56 PM"
"Most Private guns NOT used for crime
Reader Sears lists a number of things he is pretty sure of. But, respectfully, his beliefs don't match the facts. While his concluding paragraphs are quite good, I suggest a thought experiment for his numbered list. Replace "gun" with "car" and see if this set of beliefs even makes logical sense. I will specifically address only his final point:
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
The best estimates are that there are well over 200 Million privately held firearms in the U.S., well under 1 million firearm crimes per year (closer to half a million) and over 2 million defensive uses of firearms per year. So guns are two to four times more likely to be used to defend the innocent than to be used in a crime. Also note that only 1/4 of a percent of guns are used each year for any kind of crime. For the studies, see:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html and
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
Dan Nutley of CA
Mar 10, 2008 00:17:15 AM"
The following was on a US News & World Report Comments Page about the Article in US&WR about the Supreme Court Case on The 2nd Amendment.
Some People should not be allowed to vote.
"The right to own firearms
Although I'm pretty sure that:
1) Most guns are owned by people who don't know how to use them.
2) Most gun owners don't have the emotional or mental stability to be entrusted with firearms.
3) Most guns in private hands are a greater danger to the owners and their families than a protection.
4) The purpose of private gun ownership is mostly to benefit the gun manufacturers and dealers: very little benefit to the gun purchasers.
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
Having said all that, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and like the rest of the constitution, it depends on us citizens to exercise our rights responsibly and to protect ourselves from those among us who would improperly exploit those rights or violate them, without us abridging those constitutional rights.
Protecting ourselves against those who use guns to hurt their fellow citizens is just a part of living in the real world, like protecting ourselves against every other kind of violence, druggies, sexual predators, abusers, thieves, swindlers, road rage, etc etc ad infinitum. Like it or not, we just have to let everyone have their guns, and to the best of our abilities stay alert and on guard in case some are used to threaten and hurt innocent citizens.
Charles Sears of OR
Mar 07, 2008 18:12:17 PM"
Comments on above Post
"Are you serious??? These are probably some of the most ignorant statements I have heard in my entire life, Charles. So you're saying that the 100 million gun owners in the US are all criminals? And we're all emotionally immature? Guess we better build more prisons then, huh? And there's no benefit to the private ownership of a firearm? Well Charles, the next time you have to call the police to your fantasy world when someone is breaking into your house, you let me know how long you have to wait. I'm sure it'll seem like an eternity. In my area, you get put on hold when you call 911. Maybe you need to wake up to reality, Charles. But I do appreciate you calling me, many of my friends, all of my family members, as well as police officers, and members of the military, emotionally unstable idiots. You think about that next time you need help from the police.
Jon Rider of NV
Mar 09, 2008 21:51:56 PM"
"Most Private guns NOT used for crime
Reader Sears lists a number of things he is pretty sure of. But, respectfully, his beliefs don't match the facts. While his concluding paragraphs are quite good, I suggest a thought experiment for his numbered list. Replace "gun" with "car" and see if this set of beliefs even makes logical sense. I will specifically address only his final point:
5) Most guns in private hands are used for criminal activity, very little for protection of innocent people.
The best estimates are that there are well over 200 Million privately held firearms in the U.S., well under 1 million firearm crimes per year (closer to half a million) and over 2 million defensive uses of firearms per year. So guns are two to four times more likely to be used to defend the innocent than to be used in a crime. Also note that only 1/4 of a percent of guns are used each year for any kind of crime. For the studies, see:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html and
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
Dan Nutley of CA
Mar 10, 2008 00:17:15 AM"
- Status