cking Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Once it is finally recognized as individual right, then it will become a state affair to regulate. Which leads to more cases. Then the cases will be somewhat like the right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a theatre. Your individual right is superceded by collective right of the crowd to safety. But this good, because they will need evidence to make case and modern statistic have proven that armed society is a safe society. SO what I'm hoping for is that if your a person with no history of violence you can have machine, suppressors etc. They may still have to be registered, but things like $200 doc stamps will disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce282 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The oral arguments are being played on CSPAN right now. www.cspan.org Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I am listening now, very cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 this is very interesting. Covering a lot of different bases Ammo, particularly armor piercing Automatic weapons Handguns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 "they" have me blocked from streaming media at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warpspeed Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 So will this be available after as a download ? anyone know ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Metal Only Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I'm watching too and it doesn't sound like their making any decions on really anything. Do these people know anything about firearms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The very foundation that insures our freedom and liberty....is on the table right now!! Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walangkatapat Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) I don't want to be the party pooper, but all the facts, quotes from our Founders won't matter to activist judges that can't keep their personal biases out of their decision making. I'm still seeing this a 5-4 against the People. Edited March 18, 2008 by walangkatapat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckbradley Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 This didnt make me feel good about our chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 This didnt make me feel good about our chances. Agreed I hope my gut feeling is wrong tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I got a kick out of Scalia mocking the attorney who said he could take a trigger lock off in 3 seconds. Sure, you could take a trigger lock off in 3 seconds . . . in bright light while wearing your glasses, and if you had the key in your hand to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I got a kick out of Scalia mocking the attorney who said he could take a trigger lock off in 3 seconds. Sure, you could take a trigger lock off in 3 seconds . . . in bright light while wearing your glasses, and if you had the key in your hand to start. Ya Scalia was a hoot. "Turn on the light, find your glasses. " ~laughter~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Pole on C-SPAN Uphold Ban 202-585-3885 Repeal Ban 202-585-3886 DC residents 202-585-3887 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cking Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 cspan is swamped, can't connect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Pole on C-SPAN Uphold Ban 202-585-3885 Repeal Ban 202-585-3886 DC residents 202-585-3887 Well its busy !!! I cant get through, thats a very good sign, keep trying !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 They just said that the arguments will be streamed on c-span.org Also in text.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 where did you find this poll ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 where did you find this poll ? They said it was a pole and then they would take calls, but I think it was just call in for live.... Also 8pm ET they will re air it for any of you who didn't get to hear it. The said it will be aired on Friday too, but I didn't catch the time... check on c-span Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 where did you find this poll ? They said it was a pole and then they would take calls, but I think it was just call in for live.... Also 8pm ET they will re air it for any of you who didn't get to hear it. The said it will be aired on Friday too, but I didn't catch the time... check on c-span Awsome, Podcasts mabey ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 OK, I tried like 10 times. I attempted to do my "duty". Not that it matters or is going to influence the Supreme Court in anyway. I am off to dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The top of one of the latest AP writethru: WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years. A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Stream is here, but quality sucks. Link to Stream PS you need Real player http://www.realplayer.com/ Edited March 18, 2008 by JThompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 If the Court says that the 2nd is an individual right but that it is subject to regulation (which looks to be the way this could be decided), the best hope for us is that they hang the strict scrutiny tag on it, which will then make it difficult, but not impossible, for a gun control law to pass constitutional muster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The top of one of the latest AP writethru:A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home. "What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point. Sharp eye EERW! I am encouraged. I listened to the arguments by Cspan. A few thoughts for those who posted above and did not get a good feeling about our chances: 1) The Justices often play "devil's advocate" by arguing against what they might actually believe. Problem is: you can never tell when they are arguing for or against their own opinion. This fact is the reason why the predictions after hearing the oral arguments are often wrong. In the Kelo case, no one really expected the result after hearing the arguments. 2) Cases are rarely decided on the oral arguments. Rather, the briefs are what make or break a case. The Justices stated that the briefs in this case were of high quality - which is important considering the fact that I found Gura's oral advocacy deficient. There are more briefs amici on our side; which at least tells us that almost every possible angle has been covered in favor of an individual right and all relevant facts have been presented. David and Mark: incorporation was not meaningfully argued by the parties here. I don't think resolution of this case hinges on incorporation. Standard of review: Roberts asked: (paraphrase) "Why do we need to answer the question of whether this right, if it found to exist, is subject to strict scrutiny? Isn't that question outside the scope of the issue raised?" -I don't think the S.G. gave a satisfactory answer. I believe he responded with "It is possible that. . ." My impression was that the Justices did not buy it. Their tendency has been to craft narrowly-tailored decisions. If they do not need to establish a standard, they will not do so. So - prediction time: I expect the holding to be something like: "The Second Amendment is an individual right which is incorporated. The D.C. handgun ban violates the rights of citizens as to ownership of handguns in the home. We need not reach the issue of whether the right under the Second Amendment is subject to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny because the D.C. ban would not withstand either standard of review." If we get such a ruling, this is a HUGE win for us! While some will argue: "well, not much will change down at the local gun shop for me and my friends so this opinions meaningless!" - I strongly disagree. Again, if you find yourself in one of the 11 out of 13 circuit courts TODAY and you try to tell the judge: "I have an individual right under the 2nd Amendment, you WILL LOSE and the judge can point to binding (mandatory) authority on the books right now which states: you have NO individual right to own a firearm under the 2nd. I am hopeful that we will prevail. We find out as late as early July - though an earlier decision is likely. Regards as always, Douglas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now