D.C. v. Heller concludes Tuesday, March 18. Audiotape of case will be released.

[jody]

Audiotape of gun case out early

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will release the audiotapes of the oral argument in the Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), shortly after the argument concludes on Tuesday, March 18. The case is scheduled for one hour and 15 minutes, with each side having 30 minutes and the U.S. Solicitor General having 15. The Court’s press release can be found {1} here. C-SPAN cable network sought the early release; the network’s news release Tuesday can be found {2} here.

With the case scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., the hearing should run at least until 11:15 or so; the Chief Justice, however, may allow counsel additional time as the hearing proceeds; there is no other case scheduled for argument that day.

This is the third case this Term for which the Court has released the audiotapes on a same-day basis: the other two involved the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and constitutional issues surrounding the use of lethal injections in death-row executions.

In addition to the prompt release of the audiotapes in the D.C. gun case, the Court, as usual, will release the written transcript of the argument by early afternoon, at the latest, that day.

NOTE: Dubya supports D.C.

Dubya's Solicitor General and DOJ submitted a brief Amici for Petitioner (D.C.) that opposes the interpretation that the Second Amendment protects the natural, inherent, inalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. See BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE

I wonder how McCain will react since he accepted Dubya's endorsement?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. Well....... I Haven't Read the Whole Thing Yet

But I'm pleasantly surprised.

Of course, they supported the individual's right to own a gun. More importantly, they recognize that any law involving restricting that right requires special scrutiny.

Please note from this blog below that '... the brief took no direct position on the constitutionality of the 1976 D.C. law that is at issue: a flat ban on private possession of handguns."

They simply stated the Court of Appeals made way too broad of a ruling.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/us-supports-gun-rights-but-more-narrowly/

Bravo!!

As for McCain, I'm sure he is smart enough not to go hunting with the Bush/Cheney clan.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. As for Bush Endorsing McCain

It's amusing: The 'mission accomplished' President endorses the 100 year war Presidential nominee.

Hopefully, the Bush administration's arguments will cause the conservative members of the bench to consider the issues which are far more important than a simple reactionary pro-gun position that gives no consideration to the ramification of a too broad of a ruling.

I've always argued that the Appeals Court ruling was WAY too broad and completely unnecessary. The Court could simply narrow the scope of the debate and return the issue back to the lower court for review.

[bossy22]

3. in my opinion the appeals court

ruling was not too broad...they even mentioned that reasonable gun controls can still exist such as prohibited persons- background checks- and waiting periods. What they said was unreasonable was a catagorical ban that covered a large amount of firearms. Even in other courts they have ruled that bans on assault weapons are constitutional (as much as i dislike it) because they only banned a certain small group of firearms- while explicitly saying that if the ban covered all semi-auto's it would be unconstitutional because it was too broad. You can't get much broader than a categorical handgun ban. I remember reading an article in which a former DC police chief said that the handgun ban could be construed as unreasonable- but said that strict registration could be construed as reasonable.

If the court took the Justice departments view then the right is only individual in symbolism- and realistically means nothing. IT is like saying "you do have a right to free speech- but we are going to censor you anyway" the only way a true solid individual rights decision could be made is if they rule the ban unconstitutional based on the fact that it is so broad that it violates the right. The big danger is if they rule the justice deparmtnet way, that ruling can be applied to other amendments like the first. They could censor the internet, TV, books, and magazines- as long as they claim that you can still exercise free speech in newspapers.

what i think will hapen is that the ban will be thrown out, and you guys will set up something like the NYS pistol permit system- permit to purchase- registration- and the whole argument will be forgotten in 5 years.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. Disagree......

You write: 'I remember reading an article in which a former DC police chief said that the handgun ban could be construed as unreasonable- but said that strict registration could be construed as reasonable. '

Citation please. I have not seen or heard anything like that and I live here. Not saying such a quote doesn't exist....... simply saying I'd be very surprised if it did and most certainly would question it's context and your interpretation.

You write: 'If the court took the Justice departments view then the right is only individual in symbolism- and realistically means nothing. IT is like saying "you do have a right to free speech- but we are going to censor you anyway" the only way a true solid individual rights decision could be made is if they rule the ban unconstitutional based on the fact that it is so broad that it violates the right.

Well...... first of all, it is NOT 'like' saying that. The court did NOT say the right is 'symbolic' and 'realistically means nothing'. Please provide a citation on that. Your interpretation is simply incorrect in my opinion. Further, there have been reasonable restrictions, as you have pointed out, on guns not unlike there has been on speech all subject to judicial review.

[bossy22]

5. here it is

"Well...... first of all, it is NOT 'like' saying that. The court did NOT say the right is 'symbolic' and 'realistically means nothing'. Please provide a citation on that. Your interpretation is simply incorrect in my opinion. Further, there have been reasonable restrictions, as you have pointed out, on guns not unlike there has been on speech all subject to judicial review."

the court did not rule- i said "IF" as in a what if scenario.(read carefully)

here is the link
http://www.vapoliticalblogs.com/2007/12/11/

its about 1/5 down the page here is the excerpt from it
Former D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey is shifting his position on Washington’s 31-year ban on handgun ownership as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the issue.

Ramsey says there needs to be reasonable control over guns, but he says handgun registration can provide that control.

The former chief, who is set to take over Philadelphia’s police department in January, says the nation is not going to ban handguns and he’s taking a realistic approach to the issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Response

A blog quote from another blog isn't exactly the full quote. As you can see, there was nothing in that quote that said Ramsey opposed the law. Of course, when he was actually working in DC and testifying before city council under oath, he was more direct in his support of the law.

Regarding your characterization of the Second Amendment as 'symbolic' and 'realistically means nothing,' I'll leave you to come to conclusions based on something virtually no one believes.

[bossy22]

7. there ya go again

taking things out of context again are we?

you didnt read what i wrote "read carefully"

"Regarding your characterization of the Second Amendment as 'symbolic' and 'realistically means nothing,' I'll leave you to come to conclusions based on something virtually no one believes."

i said if a court ruled the way the justice department wanted them to it would mean nothing. Its like saying "you have a right to be safe from unreasonable and warantless searches- but we are still going to do it anyway"

"IF the court took the Justice departments view then the right is only individual in symbolism..."

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. You are Going Someplace Based on Something No One Has Said

You write: 'i said if a court ruled the way the justice department wanted them to it would mean nothing'

According to you and no one else.

If you really believe the Justice Department considers, with their brief, that the Second Amendment is 'symbolic' only and 'realistically means nothing', you obviously haven't read their argument where they express strong support not only for the Second Amendment but the position that it is an individual right (rather than a collective right).

[bossy22]

9. and you dont get my arguement

we are having a misunderstanding here, so lets step back and let me try to explain what i said.

my statement was MY belief based on the fact that if such a large catagory of personal defense firearms could be banned and that all long guns have be be stored dissasembled- and all of it is constitutional- even if the amendment confered an individual right it means very little if these kinds of bans are found constitutional. I have read what the DOJ says and i know they believe strongly that it is an individual right- im saying that in my belief if it is ruled that way- the amendment doesnt mean much.

You can't get much farther than banning handguns and operational long guns in the home to be dissasembled. The only next step is a full ban on all firearms that are non-muzzle loading....so my question is what woudl the amendment protect?- my right to own a muzzle loading rifle? So they could ban all firearms except for pre-19th century firearms and it would still be okay because i could have an old brown betsy for defense?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Ok.......Here You Go

You write: 'my statement was MY belief based on the fact that if such a large catagory of personal defense firearms could be banned and that all long guns have be be stored dissasembled- and all of it is constitutional- even if the amendment confered an individual right it means very little if these kinds of bans are found constitutional.'

It's not a fact. In fact, the Justice department said just the opposite - that they think the lower court was too broad in their interpretation of the District's position. They believe there is a governmental interest in gun regulation but that any such regulation must face a much tougher constitutional threshold. Basically, they think the SCOTUS should refer it BACK to the lower court and have them tighten the ruling They conclude that the government should have a much NARROWER ruling. And they most certainly think the Second Amendment should be protected by this higher threshold of scrutiny not unlike regulations impacting the press or free speech.

[jody]

11. I don't see how an intelligent person can believe banned handguns and non-operational long guns

allows a law-abiding citizen to keep and bear firearms for self-defense.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. Remember who you're talking to there. . . .

[L1A1Rocker]

12. FTGF often takes quotes out of context. I know from experience.

[L1A1Rocker]

14. This tells me two very significant things.

1) SCOTUS has scheduled this one case for the entire day. I think they are planning on this one going into overtime.

2) SCOTUS does in fact realize that this is a BIG case with LOTS of us watching and waiting. I really believe that this decision is going to be broad as sweeping.








Hey FTGF, are you still going to hold to you prediction that SCOTUS will kick the case back down to the appellate court?