POLITICS - HELLER ORAL ARGUMENTS archived PDF available

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:41 am

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm ... TV&Code=CS

Oral arguments are concluded. And the transcript is already posted!

darn, those guys are fast! 110 pages, including a huge index! Very cool. Machine-generated index, I'm sure.

See it at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf .

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 am

My old computer won't do real time audio or video feeds, so I hope our guys are more convincing than the other guys.

Joe

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:51 am

The justices seem to be really tearing apart the pro gun attorney.

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:54 am

Very Interesting, I've never heard a case presented to SCOTUS before, worth a listen...........

jengel · Post by **jengel** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:55 am

THANK YOU. I searched earlier for a video or audio link to this.

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:00 pm

I'm surprised how Rude the Justices are as far as interrupting the presenter.

jengel · Post by **jengel** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:02 pm

I agree. They do ask some good questions though.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:13 pm

Thank you. Listening.

Johnny

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:26 pm

Bryer is a condesending *** isn't he? You can just see his nose in the air.

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:28 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Bryer is a condesending *** isn't he? You can just see his nose in the air.

Yes, he is. This Alan Gura guy is giving it away.......***........He's not standing up for machine guns. I don't understand why he gives an inch.

Scott64A · Post by **Scott64A** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:31 pm

Listening right now; they're discussing machine-guns in relation to Miller's case for military weaponry.

Even though I sometimes cringe at the idiocy of these justices at times, I'm glad the discussion is open and being mulled over at ALL.

Let's all pray for God's principles of self-reliance and presevation to be upheld here.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:36 pm

It is pretty bad when Alan Gura says 'machine guns obviously wouldn't be protected' yet Ruth Ginsberg had to point out to HIM that they were indeed proper militia weapons and therefore perhaps protected...!

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:39 pm

Hard to listen to both sides.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:45 pm

This Gura guy's a JERK! He's now saying it's OK to 'license' and 'test' for gun ownership. We don't need enemies with 'friends' like that...!

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:47 pm

Shall not be unreasonably infringed?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:14 pm

Did I hear when one of the Judges ask Gura that machine guns and sawed off shotguns should be kept from interstate commerce Gura said he agreed. Was that correct?

Seems like its going to be some sort of wording that will be "Reasonable".

cnjarvis · Post by **cnjarvis** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:15 pm

I've listened for over an hour...

I have to say that I'm not impressed with Gura and would like to have seen someone much more experienced argue the case.

I just hope and pray that this goes the way we want it to.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:24 pm

Been watching all morning.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:30 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Did I hear when one of the Judges ask Gura that machine guns and sawed off shotguns should be kept from interstate commerce Gura said he agreed. Was that correct?

Seems like its going to be some sort of wording that will be "Reasonable".

Yes, he did. The guy is a loser, I'm sorry, but you don't compromise your case, you ARGUE your case.

And whether or not they are politically correct, 'machine guns' ARE legitimate small military arms. Remember - if they can ban THEM and it's 'reasonable' then they CAN ban leveractions because they hold too many rounds, or scoped guns because they can be used to 'snipe' or whatever.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:32 pm

cnjarvis wrote:I've listened for over an hour...

I have to say that I'm not impressed with Gura and would like to have seen someone much more experienced argue the case.

I just hope and pray that this goes the way we want it to.

Ya mean like NRA's Halbrook? It's not like he hasn't argued at SCOTUS before...

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:33 pm

My comp wont let me listen

I'm getting the jist from you guys though.

I don't understand what wanting to own a pistol in DC has to do with machine guns?

But although my feelings are absolutely NO INFRINGEMENT you can't ask for
the whole basket at the first meeting. If they got scared, there is no telling
what they would do.

Kinda like weighing 75 lbs. and walking up to the school bully and telling him
why he is not allowed to pick on you.

I'm gonna make an uneducated guess, they allow him to have "usable" long
guns but allow the handgun thing to stand. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:46 pm

Oral arguments are concluded. And the transcript is already posted!

110 pages, including a huge index! Very cool. Machine-generated index, I'm sure.

See it at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:03 pm

One word ... depressing.

I know that the decisions that are rendered months later often depart significantly from the tone and questions that are bandied about during the oral arguments ... I think the SCOTUS is famous for that. But Alan Gura was poor at times I thought. Perhaps my ears are not properly adjusted for supreme court level discourse but, it sounded like we lost more ground today with Gura than has been lost since NFA 1934. All you guys with Class 3 weapons go hug your tax stamps really tightly tonight.

And then we had the pleasure of listening to Mayor Fenty on the steps of the courthouse tell us that violent crime has reduced every year since the enactment of the handgun ban in DC. And that they DO license the possession of handguns ... to the DC Police, the FBI, private security guards, etc. How is it that a security guard (Mr. Heller) is qualified to be licensed to posses a handgun from 8am to 5pm at work but is mysteriously disqualified at all other times while he's in DC?

I just get the feeling that common sense is about to take a back seat (or be stuffed into the trunk more likely) in favor of political correctness and disproven gun control theory. Hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised by the ruling in June.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:40 pm

The C-Span has it archived. Very hard to hear at times. Haven't heard it all, but all very interesting in how SCOTUS oral arguments are handled. I've only seen movies that protray same, very nice to see that they got it right.

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:43 pm

Dang I hope this turns out for the better.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:33 pm

BTW - Their "decision" isn't expected until Summer - June or July, IIRC.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:43 pm

I hopefully assume that the briefs submitted to SCOTUS were well written and very swaying and the the Justices are well aware of the challenge they pose to a human in the 9:1 ratio Q&A.

Both attorneys stepped in it. The solicitor general handled himself well. Experience shows here.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:51 pm

Tycer wrote:I hopefully assume that the briefs submitted to SCOTUS were well written and very swaying and the the Justices are well aware of the challenge they pose to a human in the 9:1 ratio Q&A.

Both attorneys stepped in it. The solicitor general handled himself well. Experience shows here.

No kidding. And while the SG was not "friendly", he soulded like he was trying to distance himself a bit from "his" Amicus.

Noah Zark · Post by **Noah Zark** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:38 pm

IMO, from listening to the testimony and the questioning, the Supremes will ultimately find in favor of "individual rights" to keep and bear arms, while inserting language in the finding that leaves room for governments to determine what arms may be kept. The 2A proponents get their "individual right" finding, but can't so anything with it since governments will be able to say what kind of arms you may keep and bear as an individual.

In doing so, SCOTUS dodges the ball -- it effectively eliminates the need to hear any further challenges before the court, and deftly allows existing restrictive laws, regs, and bans to stand.

"Everybody wins," so to speak.

See if that don't happen in the end, come June or July when the SCOTUS finding is published.

Noah

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:50 pm

Noah Zark wrote:The 2A proponents get their "individual right" finding, but can't so anything with it since governments will be able to say what kind of arms you may keep and bear as an individual. Noah

I'll bet you're right. The ONLY intellectually honest opinion would be to find in favor of individual rights, but there are several anti-gun justices and they kiss-*** with the power elite in Washington DC, so they will likely 'bend' (more like shatter) the law to their ends.

Since so many gunowners and our lawyers are so apologetic for owning 'machine guns' and 'assault weapons' and seem ok with 'reasonable' laws like partial bans, waiting periods, restrictive licensing, etc., we'll be left with the concept that the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks stored in a public armory.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:51 pm

I dunno. Roberts and Alito seemed pretty "gun ho"

Bryer was his usual elitist self, but Ginsberg seemed suprisingly interested in the arguments.

I thought Alito's slam about disasembled guns &/or trigger locks was fun.

Noah Zark · Post by **Noah Zark** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:08 pm

Old Ironsights wrote: . . . but Ginsberg seemed suprisingly interested in the arguments.

That surprised me. She appeared to want to hear both sides in depth.

. . . I thought Alito's slam about disasembled guns &/or trigger locks was fun.

That was spot-on, he hit right to the heart of the incredible absurdity of the DC law.

Noah

DBW · Post by **DBW** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:12 pm

One thing I haven't heard mention of anywhere is the date the 2nd Amendment was ratified: December 15, 1791. The Militia Act of 1792 was passed by Congress May 2, 1792.

Using some logic it would be reasonable to believe that citizens already had the individual right to bear arms and join militias (organized and/or unorganized) as evidenced during the Revolutionary War prior to the Militia Act of 1792.

So which came first? The individual or the militia? Chicken or the egg?

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:26 pm

Noah Zark wrote:IMO, from listening to the testimony and the questioning, the Supremes will ultimately find in favor of "individual rights" to keep and bear arms, while inserting language in the finding that leaves room for governments to determine what arms may be kept. The 2A proponents get their "individual right" finding, but can't so anything with it since governments will be able to say what kind of arms you may keep and bear as an individual.

In doing so, SCOTUS dodges the ball -- it effectively eliminates the need to hear any further challenges before the court, and deftly allows existing restrictive laws, regs, and bans to stand.

"Everybody wins," so to speak.

See if that don't happen in the end, come June or July when the SCOTUS finding is published.

Noah

I agree to a point.
I think they'll find that REASONABLE restrictions are permissable but outright bans are not. Some seemed very interested in the BEAR part of it seeking to define it as either being a military term or meaning anyone carrying a gun. Might be that gun control laws are permitted as long as people still have acess but carry laws must be relaxed.

Either way I dont think they will let outright bans continue, Its funny watching the DC bonehead trying to construe their laws as not being a ban.
You can get a license,, except that handguns are forbidden,, you can defend yourself, ecxept that your guns got to be disassembled.

I thought Kennedy was thinking right too.

Rimfire McNutjob · Post by **Rimfire McNutjob** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:28 pm

From an AP story ...

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

I'm sorry, but I didn't exactly hear that myself. I'm still nervous about the whole thing ... but some of the news outlets have apparently already declared the issue decided.

I do wonder how the DC decision will affect the prohibitions in NYC, Chicago, and others.

SJPrice · Post by **SJPrice** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:44 pm

each city ban will have to be challenged one at a time and only if SCOTUS rules againbanst the DC

SJPrice · Post by **SJPrice** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:46 pm

And Chicago with Daly's Gestapo typically ignore Federal rulings and Supreme court decisions. They think they are above the law.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:49 pm

I read the media spin on in at yahoo.com as if a win was in the bag. I'll believe it when I see it. I fear the types of "Reasonable Infringement" our government is going to put on us. Besides I don't get it. A city with a high crime rate but no guns can be carried? All still sounds like BS to me. A man has a right to protect himself and his loved ones. Anywhere & anytime. Period.

Jarhead · Post by **Jarhead** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:04 pm

Blackhawk wrote:I read the media spin on in at yahoo.com as if a win was in the bag. I'll believe it when I see it. I fear the types of "Reasonable Infringement" our government is going to put on us. Besides I don't get it. A city with a high crime rate but no guns can be carried? All still sounds like BS to me. A man has a right to protect himself and his loved ones. Anywhere & anytime. Period.

Amen Brother!

Kismet · Post by **Kismet** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:33 pm

Noah is probably right on - individual right with restrictions. Some good analysis of the arguments here...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... f-defense/

Michael in NH

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:57 pm

Complete audio:

http://www.guntalk.libsyn.com/index.php ... y=podcasts

Scott64A · Post by **Scott64A** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:05 pm

Ugh... While I squirmed uncomfortably as I listened to Gura floundering, it was reassuring to hear that windbag DA from DC get logically hogtied in his own frivolity.

Looks good for individual rights, but I can't see the waiting period being lifted or machine guns being allowed. They even raised the issue of college kids posessing weapons on campus, and how federal law prohibited ANY weapons on campuses that recieved ANY federal aid. I was shocked and saddened that nobody pointed out the obvious: If other students who were NOT mentally defective had guns on them, most of these slayings would have resulted in less fatalities.

At least I didn't hear it while I listened for 20 minutes. I have a cardiology final coming up and am grossly unprepared. Grrr...

Noah Zark · Post by **Noah Zark** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:23 pm

Scott64A wrote:Ugh... While I squirmed uncomfortably as I listened to Gura floundering, it was reassuring to hear that windbag DA from DC get logically hogtied in his own frivolity.

Gura was too acquiescent; to me, he came across as kissing up.

Noah

Scott64A · Post by **Scott64A** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:48 pm

Noah, I can't disagree with you on this point, he was a bit starry-eyed, but those scoundrels stare down at your from a high bench and have YEARS of experience over him.

I couldn't do much better I bet.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:30 pm

Someone brought it up on another forum that it is very sad that 9 people will decide this nations fate when so many already gave so much to secure our birthright in the firstplace.

That is why America is dying.

Johnny

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:43 pm

The Second Amendment Foundation thinks we have a win here. This is on the home page news of my ISP now.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 435&EDATE=

Individual Rights Won in Today's Supreme Court Hearing, Says SAF

BELLEVUE, Wash., March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today's oral
arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia
v Heller produced a clear victory for the individual citizen's right to
keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

"We are confident," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "that the high
court will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means
what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear
that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of
District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth of
questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court
has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that 'the
people' are all citizens."

"We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun
ban that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact," he
continued. "Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement,
however, both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the
Second Amendment. Mr. Gura's remarks left the justices with a clear
understanding why the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional."

Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing
District resident Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old
handgun ban, "won the oral argument."

"While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law
and regulation on the books," Gottlieb said, "we anticipate that the court
will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific
types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest
scrutiny."

"An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June," he
concluded, "will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms
laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy
that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws.
This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects
some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true
when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be
true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it
so."

The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest
and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action
group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own
and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more
than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to
better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

I sure hope they are right.

Joe

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:48 pm

Noah Zark wrote:
Scott64A wrote:Ugh... While I squirmed uncomfortably as I listened to Gura floundering, it was reassuring to hear that windbag DA from DC get logically hogtied in his own frivolity.

Gura was too acquiescent; to me, he came across as kissing up.

Noah

Yeah, he looked scared, but realistically, from a lawyers point of view I bet trestifying in front of the SCOTUS has to be very intimidating.

I would have liked a more definitive line drawn in the sand but am pretty hapy about the outcome.
If they ruled that all restrictions were out of the question & strike down everything the movement would simply switch to repeal or amending the second I think.

IMHO it is far better for them to rule that "reasonable" regulation is acceptable as long as they define reasonable. If reasonable gun control involves strict scrutiny in regards to the second ammendment I'll be happy with it.

Someone brought it up on another forum that it is very sad that 9 people will decide this nations fate when so many already gave so much to secure our birthright in the firstplace.

They dont decide the country's fate. We do at the ballet box.
They decide how far the Govt can go. No disrespect at all to our veterans or active servicemen but if not for the supreme court & its limiting effect on legislation we would have a lot less to be thankful for. Soldiers fight wars, they dont set policy, pass legislation or limit government powers.