The Guns Case “Live” Blog

Ben Winograd | Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 11:05 am

__________

 



17 Comments »



  1. Why wouldn’t the SCOTUS just look at what the Founding Father’s wrote about being armed and the Second Amendment and make a decision from there?

    Comment by FredZiffle — March 18, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

  2. I hope that the Court does not “pare down the task before the Court” and affirm only the obvious. It would be a disservice to America to require another 60 years of litigation in hope of providing the Court with another opportunity to articulate an appropriate standard of review. The people, and all inferior courts of the land, expect this Honorable Court to lead.

    Comment by I. Allan Krouse — March 18, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

  3. I tought it went poorly. Dillinger managed to minimize the contentions on long guns: “only takes 3 seconds for the trigger lock to be removed, if your read the statute and separate the phrases by commas it doesn’t really say they need to be disasembled.. we would not really prosecute someone for using them in self defense” (paraphrasing more or less). And at the same time Gura did not respond to Dillingers statement that no were in the record had some one indicated that long guns were less effective than handguns for self defense (not true as women and disabled indicated they would have trouble using long guns). My gut feeling is that as a result, at the end of the day the Court will uphold a ban on hand guns while at the same time stating that ctizens have a right to firearms in general.

    Comment by Andrejs Vanags — March 18, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

  4. I would imagine they will rule on as restricted a basis as possible, given the issue before them. The ban will likely be upheld as a reasonable restriction, with no infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Comment by David Stevens — March 18, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

  5. My question is why no one is arguing that this right obviously pertains to not only self-defense, but the moral obligation of the people to forcefully overthrow a government which has overstepped it’s bounds of power and to have the ability and proper tools to do so? It makes me wonder whether or not there’s a single intelligent person in that room.

    Comment by phillip chiles — March 18, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

  6. Dellinger’s contention it takes three seconds to remove a trigger lock hopefully will be examined by the justices…it is a crock. I will wager he has very little exposure to handling weapons.

    This is like the lawyer claiming to drive at or near .8 G lateral acceleration in normal driving during one of the Corvair trials. Ever the Englishmen, Stirling Moss (the witness on the stand) did not attack this silliness but simply said “I doff my hat to you, then.”

    Anyway, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away…and the gun lock or safe are in the way.

    Comment by Harry Schell — March 18, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

  7. Having listened to C-SPAN as they replayed the oral arguments, I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court strike down D.C.’s compelete ban on handguns, but allow the provisions related to trigger locks, keeping guns unloaded, etc. The “individual rights” theory will triumph, but even as Mr. Gura appeared to concede in part, reasonable regulation is possible in this field

    Comment by Michael Krupen — March 18, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

  8. Harry, in D.C., the police are at least an hour away.

    Comment by James N. Markels — March 18, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

  9. A few points.

    1) Breyer is wrong on his statement that pistols were for officers under the 1792 militia act. In 1792 Officers used swords, the cavalry used pistols (a pair of) for each man regardless of rank.

    2) Getting the trigger lock off is only half the issue. Dellinger in his later argument suggested that the law was disassembled and unloaded or with a trigger lock. Granted it was his interpretation which can change with the next city attorney, but I hardly believe they would require on the one hand that the gun be disassembled and unloaded and on the other hand loaded but with a trigger lock. Obviously he can say what he wants but the law is obviously unloaded. Thus, the next time consuming action is loading the weapon, and if its semi-auto the magazine for it.

    3) With that said, lets say the citizen has an old M1 rifle. Its allowed by the law and according to Dellinger its even better then a pistol. And I can load it relatively quickly if I have a loaded N-clip. The problem is if I miss the guy (or hit him) its going to go through him, the wall, across the way, through the neighbor’s wall and possibly through the neighbor. A 30-06 is not a lightweight round.

    4) Its interesting that Ginsburg brought up the issue of women and men over 45 not being in the militia. The one fact that hasn’t been brought up by the opposition is what happened to the guns owned by men who reached age 46. There is no record the founding fathers had them disarmed. So what was the reason they retained their weapons.

    Comment by James N. Gibson — March 19, 2008 @ 12:05 am

  10. I listened with great interest as the two sides made their cases. There were moments of hope, and moments of disappointment. I knew what the D.C. gun grabbers were going to say. They have only fear and distorted lies and half-truths to use as tools to sway public opinion. This is why they brought up frightful “buzz-words” like “armor-piercing bullets” and “machine guns,” neither of which has anything to do with the question at hand:

    Can an honest citizen with no criminal record and no history of mental illness KEEP and BEAR (Read: OWN and CARRY) a LOADED HANDGUN in public, exposed OR concealed, to defend his or her own life?

    The topic of guns “in the home” kept surfacing. This makes no sense to a true 2nd amendment supporter, because there should be NO restrictions on the free exercise of a RIGHT by an honest citizen. If the SCotUS ONLY rules that guns can be kept and borne “in the home” that will be a disaster. That will mean that the ONLY place where a free man will be allowed to defend his life is IN his home. If a woman is returning to her vehicle with a cart full of groceries and some criminal approaches her with a knife or a gun, her gun “in her home” will do NOTHING to help her exercise her right to defend her life in the parking lot.

    It makes no sense to rule that the Constitution allows me to prevent some intruder from killing me “in my home,” but at the same time it DENIES me the ability to defend my life while I am withdrawing money from an A.T.M., or while taking a walk through town on a cool summer evening, or having dinner with my family at a local restaurant.

    Will some “permit” be required to exercise ANY of my rights? Will I need to register with some agency and receive training before I can speak, or write a book, or say a prayer? Shall I have to pass a “Political Opinion” test before I can VOTE?

    Handguns are no more or less dangerous than any other weapon. Does anyone believe that fewer students would have been harmed, or their injuries would have been less severe if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had entered the Columbine campus swinging four sharpened machetes? Do you gun grabbers believe that, absent the presence of guns, the students would have made an attempt to overpower these two killers? Heck, even a few scrawny middle-eastern goat herders with BOX CUTTERS prevented THREE PLANES FULL OF MEN from risking personal injury to overpower them on 9/11.

    This case is about BANNING HANDGUNS and REMOVING A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE! Do not be led astray by frivolous smoke and mirror arguments about hunting and rifles and militias. If you doubt me, just ask yourself this question:

    “If ALL handguns were turned in TOMORROW, would the gun grabbers have NO OBJECTIONS to honest, ordinary citizens openly carrying loaded shotguns and rifles for self-defense as casually as they now carry cellular phones?”

    You already know the answer to that question, don’t you?

    The gun grabbers are telling us that their main concern is the easy concealment and portability of “handguns.” Currently, they are trying to pacify gun owners by hinting that they have no objections to weapons of “linear evolution” to the founding father’s muskets and black powder long guns, but they are telling a bold-faced LIE! If they were honest, they would tell you that in the US vs. THEM gun debate, they want to disarm the entire population, except of course, for THEM, as they are pompous and egotistical enough to believe that THEY ALONE should be able to determine who can, and who cannot own a gun.

    The D.C. gun grabber’s case is not about defending your life “in your home.” It is not about defending your life with handguns. It is about laying the ground work to deny you the RIGHT to defend your life AT ALL.

    Comment by Joseph Jones — March 19, 2008 @ 2:58 am

  11. Mr. Gura was happy to dismiss and discard the unorganized militia’s right to own militia weapons in exchange for a retired D.C. security guard getting permission to keep a little revolver in his nightstand.

    Comment by Robert O'Rourke — March 19, 2008 @ 6:31 am

  12. The evolution of the 2nd amendment wording does not clearly support the individual rights argument as that has been argued.

    I pose this observation: If a locality cannot impose (if I read all the observations right)a gun ban because of the overall “right to ..” and conversly, a locality cannot make gun ownership mandatory (as in I think Georgia) is the “individual” ownership argument than that all localities CANNOT set ownership standards other than “reasonable and prudent” (whatever that is…remembering that no guns or total gun ownership may be reasonable and prudent on a case by case basis) and that the correct decision from the SC is to remove localities from the decision making process.

    Sounds like a Roe v. Wade compromise in the offing….you can’t do this, you can’t do that, but you can kinda do this and that….

    Amazing.

    Comment by hdhouse — March 19, 2008 @ 11:38 am

  13. Those who think banning hand guns is ok couldn’t be more wrong. The 2nd amendment was written to allow citizens to own firearms equal to those of the military. There I said it!

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

    So I ask you (the ‘collective’ thinkers), what part of that statement don’t you understand?

    Comment by Erik McVay — March 19, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

  14. The problem with most of you who don’t quite get it, is that letting the government regulate your firearms is akin to allowing your enemy to choose your weapons when at war.

    The point of the 2nd Amendment was that the citizens have the right to overthrow the government (god forbid) if it oppresses them — which cannot be done if the very government that is oppressing you is also regulating guns out of your hands.

    Would you imagine overthrowing the Government with muskets when they have M16’s? Hardly!

    But could you do so if you too had M16’s? Absolutely. Those who argue otherwise are being dishonest. For example, if only 10% of the US were to arm and uprise then you would have 30 MILLION people doing so — not much a 700,000 man army can do against that — now imagine say 50 million armed citizens choosing to toss out the federal (and perhaps state) governments and guess what? They would succeed and this is the very reason for gun bans.

    Comment by Erik McVay — March 19, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

  15. My rights are not for the supreme court to “interpret” or to parcel out like welfare. They are mine by birth, granted by the almighty God and no robe or ruler may divest me of them. There is no “interpretation” no “reasonableness” no revision that will be tolerated. My rights and the rights of all men are not for you to give or to take. You for too long have approached this glittering jewel of liberty and for too long your interference has been tolerated. NO LONGER!! The line is drawn in the sand on this issue! it matters not what you find or divine you will not take from me that which you neither granted or possessed. Sic semper tyrannis!

    Comment by Patrick Henry — March 19, 2008 @ 11:19 pm

  16. Since this case is about the meaning of certain wording, I am actually surprised that no one else (that I have observed) has brought up this point.

    The U. S. Constitution addresses three different “entities” which it identifies as “the Government” (read—Federal Government), “the State” (obviously, a government of any of the several states), and “the people” (individuals).

    When taken in that context, the phrase “…right of the people…” seems to remove ANY confusion, regardless the intent of that particular amendment.

    Comment by Anthony McGuire — March 20, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  17. Having been a trained law enforcement officer at local, state and Federal positions, I have to be amazed at the unrealistic position that some individuals have about the “right of self-defense”. A Felon entering your home, or being accosted by felons on the street in a manner that risks life, does that not entail a person to evoke the “common law of self defense” implied in our constitution? And if it does, what power determines who can use what devise/implement/tool to defend one’s self? If it takes local police several minutes to respond, does that mean I have to forfiet my life to be in compliance with the law either restricting or banning firearms? I would like to expand this discussion, and hear further response.

    Comment by Gilbert Raske — March 25, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.