Turn on C-Span and watch the fun! as of right now, 12:35, Dellinger, the attorney arguing for the District of Columbia, is getting his clock cleaned by the Justices. Even Ginsberg, who isn't a real friend of ours, isn't buying the militia-and-not-the-individual horse-hockey he's trying to sell! And Justice Kennedy just whacked him across the nose with a rolled-up newspaper, using the term "right inhewrent in the Consitutution, generally understood as such" with regard to individual firearms ownership and use!
It looks like they are wrapping up, how did it go? I had to jump into a conference (theres that work thing messing up my day again...) and missed almost all of it.
__________________
"It is useless for the sheep
to pass resolutions in favour of
vegetarianism" ~ R. W. Inge
Last edited by BaserRonin; 03-18-2008 at 02:17 PM.
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
If it is looked at as a pair of boxing matches, say, with the Court in the white trunks, Alan Dura (the lawyer for the Good Guys) in red trunks and Walter Dellinger in the blue trunks, I think you'd have to say that Dura got a split decision while Dellinger lost.
Dellinger got verbally slapped around like a homeowner with a rolled up newspaper disciplining a puppy he's trying to train. It was like watching the Knights of Camelot charging the castle held by the French in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He'd pick a target on the wall and the Justices would smack him and he'd run into the wall while some of the Justices dropped barbed questions on him. He'd pick another part of the wall, and it would happen again. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg wouldn't let him ring in some of the Brady Bunch perception bullshit in. He got so confused at one point, when he tried to concede that rifles and shotguns were suited to personal defense, he said "handguns" instead of shotguns! Unfortunately, Justice Breyer (I think) spoke up and corrected him. Wouldn't it have been delightful if THAT clanger had remained on the record!
Dellinger went clear back into Scottish law (which is going even farther back into history than citing to English Common Law as the Framers did when writing on the Second Amendment back in 1791 - by the time of the Revolution England and Scotland had been the United Kingdom for generations) aimed against Catholic religionists trying to prove his points. From the way the Court landed on him, I don't think they bought his argument. Roberts stopped just short of saying, "Oh, give me a break!" in legalese.
The only justices that seemed to be on Dellinger's side were Stevens and Souter. From the way they questioned the two lawyers, Souter wants a narrow ban (handguns only) while Stevens wants a wider one. All the rest were more or less on our side, except Thomas. He didn't open his mouth once that I heard, so who knows what he will come out with when it comes time for the opinion to be written.
The justices didn't cut Gura much slack, but there was a sense in the give and take of their questioning that they were listening to him seriously that was absent from their questioning of Dellinger. I had the impression they opened the castle gates (to continue with my Python analogy) and had him in for a cup of small beer and a drumstick while they talked. Souter and Stevens were definitely hostile and tried to entrap him verbally. As far as I could tell, he only stepped into one bear trap, but a significant one. He agreed that states had a right to regulate firearms under some conditions.
I think you can get an idea of how it went by this. When the two opposing legal teams came out of the chamber to talk to the press, the Good Guys led by Gura were smiling and confident that they had made their points and won the day. Dellinger put a good face on it, but his backup attorneys looked very glum, like students coming out of the principal's office after getting a good tongue-lashing and having a long spell of detention waiting for them.
My take on the affair? About the same as it has always been. Here is how I think their decision will read:
We will get confirmation that the Second Amendment confirms the right of individuals to keep and bear arms unconnected with any militia considerations - an argument against individual rights made by Dellinger most of the justices didn't seem to buy, incidentally.
The DC law will be overturned, but the justices will say the states have the right to put restrictions on who can own what. They seemed very concerned about citizens owning "machine guns" and the term was used with such ambiguity one cannot tell if they mean "machine gun" in the sense of a crew-served weapon, or in the colloquial sense many dingaling reporters and antigunners apply it to assault rifles and submachine guns as well. The door will be opened for case-by-case lawsuits against places like New York City with its Sullivan Law, Wisconsin's refusal to grant any kind of handgun ownership to anyone but law enforcement types and Chicago's oppressive regulations.
It's not going to be the end of Sarah Brady and her fascists, or nanny-staters like Pelosi, McCarthy and Clinton; but it should put them and the Democratic Party plainly on the defensive and give McCain a nice big club to beat them with. We will simply have to wait and see.
I could wish Gura was more eloquent and faster-thinking on his feet than he was, for in my opinion he missed a couple of chances to slip proofs of the intent of an individual rights interpretation by the Framers into the mix. In fact, Scalia may have been our biggest ally. He pointed out, with just a hint of sarcasm, that it is difficult to see what good allowing the concept of personal defense in the home might be if the law requires long guns to be kept locked with a trigger lock and unloaded; that it's a little late when the burglar is in the room to run to the closet, get out the gun, unlock it, load it and only then be able to defend yourself, your family and your home. If enough of the other justices, particularly Ginsberg, buy into that viewpoint, I think we've won the day.
Thanks Oxford but personaly It appears there adding crap to the plate !!!
If they'll just rule wether we have the right to bear arms on thats all !
They could wrap it up in 30 minutes.
I was delighted the commas were mentioned because it means another subject/
I talked to and old war vet today, and he said they would rule in favor of us to avoid a civil war, and he said he would be right there with us if it came to that. He said he was used to fighting for Americans freedoms, it would be a pleasure to serve again. That is encouraging. The reasonable restrictions would be more taxes and permits to please the politico. Feed them money and they will shut up.
See, I'm no rocket scientist nor was I a brainiac in school. But I did pretty good. I'm the kind of person that learns by doing, not out of a book. Show me, let me do it and i learn it. I did plumbing for a while, about 6 months. Never went to school for it, but from that short time, I can do an awful lot to this day. I never went to school for it, but I rewired my entire garage. So now that I've explained that, this is how I look or view the 2nd Amendment,
The wording of it,
A well regulated militia, (to me means military or army) ( the comma after it to me represents what follows is also included in the same end result), being necessary to the security of a free state, (again, a comma after this to include what follows) (also, they new that after the revolution, they'd have to have an army or military to prevent another similar thing from happening), ( again, another comma to include what follows, which is this), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (now notice how Arms is capitalized, so to me, means all and any Arms, I feel this was also included because if not for the people, raising their own arms and help, they or we'd of lost! Also, they believed the people should have the right to prevent their own Government from walking all over them., now comes the end, shall not be infringed. ( if you look the word infringed up, it means violate and or any form of the word, like violated).
So, shall not be infringed could also be stated as shall not be VIOLATED! Not saying I'm exact in how I interpreted it, but I think I'm dam close if not there. So I think the only reason people are ignorant and try to interpret it is because it simply goes against what they want or dislike, PERIOD!
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 03-19-2008 at 01:49 PM.
For the working folks on the forum who couldn't catch the debate live, C-SPAN will rebroadcast it in its entirety on Saturday, at 7 PM Eastern Time, I think. Check your local listings, settle down with a pleasant drink of your choice, pen and paper, and watch it. Take notes. Budget two hours for it; I don't know if they are planning to include the post-argument interviews and the call-in by viewers or not. This was an argument of historic importance if lackluster performance by the lawyers on both sides - where are Clarence Darrow and Daniel Webster when you need them? - and believe it or not, the Justices mostly spoke in plain English. Nobody will have trouble following the points they are driving at.
Glock, you're 1000% correct -- the Constitution and amendments were meant to be taken at face value. No more, no less. If anyone looks at the writings of the folks who framed it, it's pretty simple. The 2nd was designed to back up all the others by affirming the right of the people (as in all U. S. citizens) to keep and bear arms. That's it. In general, ownership and carriage should be unimpeded by our government. There's no "reasonable" provision for arms we "like" or "don't." -- it's essential parity. If we, as a country aren't desiring this, the answer is to amend the constitution not pervert the law.
good post. 
