DC Guns: Early Morning Round-Up
Some of today’s major editorial pages feature commentary on today’s case. Randy Barnett has this op-ed in the WSJ called “Gun-Rights Showdown,” and the Cato Institutes’ Robert Levy has this piece in the Boston Globe called “Fighting For Our Right To Bear Arms.” The editorial boards of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times make their views of the case known; the NYT supports upholding DC’s gun ban and the LAT largely sides with the view espoused by the Solicitor General to remand the case for further consideration.
Today’s Washington Post has coverage of the case from many different angles. This profile of Walter Dellinger (arguing for DC) is called “An Old Hand At Court Gears Up for Battle,” while a companion profile of Mr. Heller’s attorney Alan Gura is called “For Young Area Lawyer, The Supreme Compliment.” This Post article discusses the long line for tickets outside the Court, and this article asks “Which Arguments Will Hit The Mark?”
Howard Bashman of the How Appealing Blog also links to several other DC Guns-related stories in this post. Marty Lederman has this post on Slate’s new Convictions blog.
CNN.com leads with an article, and this photo of The Line
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/t1home.scotus.ap.jpg
Comment by Paul Milligan — March 18, 2008 @ 8:14 am
Still calling it a ‘guns’ case I see.
It’s a 2nd Amendment case.
Different mentality. Though I know that Akin Gump (SCOTUS blog sponsor) is on the DC side.
Comment by Dan Passaro — March 18, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Prediction: Machine Gun Alito will write a wonderful opinion that will affirm once and for all, the individual right.
Comment by Jay Reynolds — March 18, 2008 @ 10:50 am
I agree – this is not a “guns case,” but it may be more than a 2D Amendment case. I’d suggest it is a Bill of Rights case. The question in my mind: Do lawyers and justices respect our US Constitution and it’s original intent? Is is right to change the intent of the Constitution without a formal Amendment agreed to by all the people? Is it the purview of lawyers/judges to twist our Bill of Rights to their political views? No! It is OUR Constitution, not the political tool of political hacks. The Constitution is there to protect our God given, inalienable rights that preexisted its adoption. As an old soldier our rights are dear to me – particularly since I’ve been shot at protecting all that they stands for. Do not infringe on our rights. The question before the Court? Original intent!
Old Soldier, US Army [Retired]
Comment by Richard L Feeney — March 18, 2008 @ 11:59 am
To my mind, Roberts comment about a “total ban” clearly hints at where the court is going, as does other comments. There is a very large group that agrees with individual rights and a very large group that agrees that some regulation is necessary. The disagreement is just over where and how to draw the line. Now that I see where the court is heading, I actually think Clement’s brief is better than I first thought.
Comment by Daniel Thomas — March 18, 2008 @ 1:25 pm