Tuesday, March 18, 2008

DRTV Live Coverage...

...of D.C. v Heller has started...right now we're posting the first flash analysis of the oral arguments from SCOTUSBLOG...we'll be adding to it all day, amd should have the actual arguments up as soon as they become available....
Posted by at

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

transcript is up @ scotus

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

12:37 PM
Anonymous said...

Michael

I think we won the day. Now, does that mean the sullivan law and brady and 922C and the chicago handgun bans totally goes by the wayside? I don't know.

Logically, they should.

I think we won't win on machine guns though..


Even the Fox News chick said brady center people told her they think theyve lost...we shall see.

4:44 PM
Anonymous said...

I believe the Supremes will agree with the lower court...but will also say DC is free to inact other "reasonable" restrictions to gun ownership. And DC is already re-writing the laws in pencil getting ready to do just that.

5:42 PM
Anonymous said...

While surprised, and pleasantly, I'm too jaded to believe we will carry the day.At best we can hope for a ruling neither side likes and and at worse a 5-4 against us will happen.

5:53 PM
Anonymous said...

Per my sweety's play-back of what she heard on the TV today, one of the justices seemed to mock the requirement that guns be locked and can't therefore be used for self-protection. It seems that the fact that the minute it is unlocked as in the face of a threat, it is illegal was lost on him. But, there is still hope.
Life Member

5:56 PM
Anonymous said...

I think the good guys won today.

Now, this means that there will be at least 20 years of lawsuits against all sorts of other gun bans, such as in Chicago.

Jurisdictions will be able to regulate gun ownership, but they won't be able to ban it.

Short version of my comments elsewhere is thus.

In anti-gun jurisdictions, it'll be like adult bookstores and X-rated video outlets in places that really, really, really want to ban adult bookstores and X-rated video outlets.

Those cities might be able to regulate, in limited ways, where adult bookstores and X-rated video outlets are located.

But those cities simply cannot ban adult bookstores and X-rated video stores, no matter how much they might want to.

And those cities cannot ban their citizens from patronizing adult bookstores and X-rated video outlets, either.

It'll be similar with guns. Some regulation will pass muster.

But outright, total bans won't.

It's a win for us.

9:01 PM
Anonymous said...

To be blunt, equating porn and vibrator shops to an individual's right to keep and bear arms is NOT exactly an apple to apple comparison.

Jibby jabby all you want to about Larry Flynt of Hustler fame and the First Amendment, I just don't quite see the connection.

Besides, it's one thing to publish. It's another thing to stick a "questionable" business in somebody's neighborhood.

10:58 PM
Anonymous said...

Asymmetric warfare baby!!!

"Now, this means that there will be at least 20 years of lawsuits against all sorts of other gun bans, such as in Chicago."

Ok with me if it gives grounds for more RKBA challenges. The more the better. I'm fed up being perpetually on defense and in reaction mode. I'd like to take to the GFW's for a change and take some ground back instead of just fighting to slow the erosion of liberty.

It's been hard to even get a hearing on 2A issues in many cases. I say let the games begin (continue).

If we can engage the Gun-grabbers offensively and keep them spending from their warchests on lawyers it's a good thing. It's less dollars for them to spend on electioneering.

Assymetric warfare baby!!!

Dwight

11:35 PM
Anonymous said...

Folks

I havent been this excited since we beat Algore in 2000. At least we have stopped the bleeding on our side. I think that if they rule the way I think they will rule, Dwight will be essentially correct...they will be able to regulate guns somewhat, but not ban them.

The question I have is, at what point does "reasonable regulation" becomea defacto ban, because the government makes the hurdles necessary to exercise just too difficult to get the guns?

Would reasonable restriction mean you have to buy liability insurance, or keep the gun locked up or you can't use hollowpoint ammo in your handguns?

Does it mean youre prohibited from carrying concealed in a mall or the grocery store because a reasonable restriction prohibits it?

6:35 PM
Anonymous said...

FWIW, I agree with the '20 years of lawsuits' analysis. This is how it should be. In terms of real-world application, the 2nd Amendment is about where the 1st was in 1900, and this is just the beginning. Don't expect anything sweeping. They are not going to overturn the gun laws of all 50 states. Expect a narrow and specific opinion that will probably not clearly resolve for All Time the Big Questions. Remember too that DC isn't a state, which could affect how the outcome gets applied in the Real World God know how.

-- my 2 cents, a bargain at half the price.

11:01 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)