Just finished reading the inital arguments, and I think a few important items were left out!

Care to read it?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

I take argument with the definition of the militia, specifically, the age restrictions mentioned. They talked about the age restrictions used for membership in the active militia as those required by the National Guard.

In the book, "Drums along the Mohawk", (supposedly based on true events) the men were off to war with George Washington's Colonial Militia, when Indians led by Redcoats attacked the frontier settlements. The men of military age were gone and so the women and elderly assumed Militia duty, and defended the villages.


In World War 2, the Germans utilized the very young and elderly, in the attack of the "Battle of the Bulge", that attack failed, but more because they ran out of fuel and ammo, than because the solders were outside the normal military age requirements.

My argument here is that all can be called upon for military service. Its happened other places, and I suggest we can't ever be listening to Frank Zappa's "It Can't Happen Here".

We had one guy in our shooting club, a veteran with no legs, but he was a "Master" with handguns. In repelling aggressive invaision, I would want him on my side.

There was once a saying, "God didn't make all people equal, Sam Colt did."

Anyone else find flaws in the arguments?

Gun control laws are the biggest threat to public safety in this nation . Keeping the honest people unarmed so the police can keep up on their chalk outline drawing skills is just silly and criminal . The cool hip and undereducated gangstas that live in gun controlled areas always seem to have guns for their drive by initiations and armed robbery sprees . The only thing that will stop them is if they have bullets coming at them from all directions every time they get stupid . If they wanted to pass a Gun Control law it should be one that every adult of sound mind and no felony record should attend gun safety classes and be required to carry openly a weapon for the defense of themselves and family . Now that would be a law to live with and I bet being a murderous gangsta would soon lose its appeal .

Alright, Guys - let's keep this related to the Supreme Court discussion and not rant on other gun issues. Otherwise, we'll have to lock the thread.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Keep off the ridgeline? I love the ridgeline! I can hunt two canyons at once that way.

But then, you skylight yourself and everything within country miles can see you and either hide or depart the scene! :D

written by a friend of mine;

Wow, I am proud of most of our Supreme Court justices.

After reading the back n forth arguments, they really hammered the city of Wash DC pretty good.

Final verdict in June? argh...

Here are some interesting segments (in no certain order):
with my comments in bold below each segment


1.He said the first clause of the amendment limits its scope to military operations aimed at safeguarding the common defense.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Dellinger why the authors of the Second Amendment specified a "right of the people," rather than simply saying the right of the state militia.
Opening salvo, Supreme Court Justice 1, solicitor 0.



2. In defending its handgun ban, district officials say it doesn't amount to an unconstitutional deprivation because homeowners can keep rifles and shotguns in their homes for protection, just not handguns.

But several justices questioned other provisions of the city's strict gun laws that require rifles and shotguns to remain unloaded and disassembled or secured with a trigger lock. Justice Scalia said such laws might make it difficult for a homeowner to defend himself in the middle of the night with an intruder already halfway through the bedroom window.
Nice, so, it appears maybe the high court thinks we do have a right to protect ourselves, so, this not only goes toward gun ownership, but, also could reinstitute the Castle Doctrine

3. Mr. Dellinger (representing the DC Law) said that the terms 'militia' and 'the people' were often interchangeable.

Justices Kennedy and Scalia suggested the amendment may reflect an attempt in the first clause to reaffirm militia rights already protected in the body of the Constitution, but then went on in the second clause to specify an additional, broader right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"I don't see how there's any contradiction," Scalia said. "The two clauses go together beautifully." He added, "Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Wow, a Supreme Court Justice being frank and driect, no beating around the bush. Like he is saying "Who are you you little POS to question our Constitution?

4.Dellinger replied that the words "bear arms" implies that the people's right was confined to military matters.

Justice Kennedy asked whether the amendment's protections weren't broader than a focus on militias. "It has nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?" he asked.
Again, back to defending one's self, very good, as this tells us what is on their minds should we have to handle a problem domestically, it's as if the Justices already are saying we have a right and duty to protect ourselves, so, if this is the case, how can the government infringe our right to do so?

5.Dellinger said handguns are particularly dangerous because they can be carried secretly and used in crimes.

But Roberts wondered if the same approach were used in the context of First Amendment rights, whether it would be acceptable for a city to ban books because newspapers provided an alternative.
Ouch, I think Roberts poked him with a pointy stick!

6. Mr. Clement held firm to his position that the high court should be careful not to create rigorous constitutional protections that might create a right for Americans to own any and all military-grade weapons, including machine guns. "It is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the national guard, and that's what the machine gun is," Clement said.

Roberts countered that the DC gun case involves an absolute ban – not restrictions on machine guns. "Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrower one directed solely to machine guns?"
OH, nice try, but it looks like the Justices just are not in the mood for silly mindless banter! We're hear to talk about a handgun Ban you ninny, not machine guns!!



OK, so far I like what I read. Of course, we have to wait.
They do not have to speak farther than the handgun Ban, however, it appears there is room for them to speak a little further, should they choose. In my mind it's almost as if they WANT to speak a little further. It may not go toward Concealed Carry, as that was not the issue, but it did lean toward an unwritten right for someone to defend themselves, which is also a step in the right direction.

Even at it's narrowest, there is feeling they will come down against the DC Gun Ban, so the broader implication will be that no State can "infringe" ones right to possession (Bear arms).
This is a good thing, as the implications could go so far as to roll back waiting periods, and limits on sales , ie; one gun per month laws.

It is always refreshing to see it all come together. We hear the president speak everyday, and same for Congress. The courts sitting back in the shadows, but when they do speak, their words can reach across decades into the future, far beyond the terms of any congressmen, senators or the president.

It's been about 70 years since the Supreme Court handled a gun case. They could have quite a bit to say on this subject.
5 of them already have made their opinions known in support of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS regarding the 2nd amendment. So that is already a 5 to 4 decision, before this case was even heard.

From their questions, it sounds as if the Court, or a large majority of the Court already has a pretty strong opinion. Let's hope they write it as such.

The INDIVIDUAL RIGHT issue is something brought up by the anti-gun folks all the time "It's only for the militia!"
Dammm, won't it be nice to shut them up for a while on that topic?

My rant;

I don't understand how anyone could twist the Bill of Rights to be anything but the rights of the citizens. There is no mention anywhere else in that document, other than the tenth that separated the rights between the Federal, state & the people, that has anything to do with rights for any government entity, only the protection FROM the government.
What else would you expect from liberals but a twisted "liberal" definition of a conservative concept. They certainly don't try to put that spin on any of the other "rights" from the Bill of Rights. Any historian that knows anything about James Madison knows what the intent was.
This is the last paragraph from James Madison's Speech to the House of Representatives when he was Proposing the Bill of Rights. The last sentence should make it clear why these were written.

"Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this house the subject of amendments, and also stated such as wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support; I shall content myself for the present with moving, that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States. By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the house. I should advocate greater dispatch in the business of amendments, if I was not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government."

I am clueless to how this can be misinterpreted.......... <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Mr. Clement held firm to his position that the high court should be careful not to create rigorous constitutional protections that might create a right for Americans to own any and all military-grade weapons, including machine guns. "It is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the national guard, and that's what the machine gun is," Clement said.

Seriously, I think the DC lawyer definitely had a point here... From the stuff I read by the Founding Fathers, I really do think they thought civilians should have the right to own what the military has... Seems to me the 2nd Ammendment was really about protecting the people from their own government, not from robbers. Not that I want a bunch of YAHOOS running around with TOW missle systems, but....:eek:

Jim

written by a friend of mine;

Wow, I am proud of most of our Supreme Court justices.

After reading the back n forth arguments, they really hammered the city of Wash DC pretty good.

Final verdict in June? argh...

Here are some interesting segments (in no certain order):
with my comments in bold below each segment


.......... <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Thanks for the GREAT summary. It's much more detailed, and optimistic, than the summaries I've read in the drive by media.

I will stay puckered until they give their decision. Kennedy's a swing vote, and I have a fear that Robert's may be too comfortable with the exercise of federal power...but, let's hope and pray that they get this right!

Bottom line from all this is that all of us have to make sure we get up off our butts and work to make sure the right people are elected, especially the ones that will be making and OKing the appointments to replace the empty seats on so many of our federal courts....not to understate the supreme court appointments. The blame for so many empty seats right now is the congress won't even...thanks to Nancy Palsy ....give an up or down vote.....and that's thanks for the people that were voted into congress the last round of elections. They see the White House coming in their favor and are stalling to make sure they get to fill as many those positions as they can with the liberal anti-gun types.....
Even if we win this battle it may be just a short time before this decision is reversed if the congress and White House are all the same flavor. It'll take more than puckering to keep our firearms safe..........
Contribute freely to the NRA, the GOA and any of your own state's gun rights organizations ESPECIALLY if you aren't going to be actively working with your political organizations. They have the organization and power to help....if they have the money....

Some perspectives on the arguments, the issues and just how muddy the water can be!


http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWMxNTNlZmJjMTEzOWUyN2U5OWVmMjkwNmVkMWExNGU=

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=130

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/10/140713.shtml

Seriously, I think the DC lawyer definitely had a point here... From the stuff I read by the Founding Fathers, I really do think they thought civilians should have the right to own what the military has...


And actually, if you ignore the gun grabber's misinterpretations, that is actually what Miller v. U.S. says. Miller was insisting on his right to parade on a public street carrying a sawed-off shotgun. The court ruled he could be prevented from doing so because the sawed-off shotgun was not a suitable weapon for militia service.

We could dispute the suitability of the weapon. Miller had run out of money and was not represented at the SCOTUS hearing, so the court was not informed of the short pump shotguns used by some Army outfits for doing trench entry work, for which duty their light weight and speed of pointability and rapid stopping power made them a good choice.


More of interest: I just had a call from a writer friend who lives in D.C. He said to look at today's Washington Post opinion column by Charles Lane (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102540.html?referrer=emailarticle), titled To Keep and Bear Arms. It is just an astonishing thing to see in this otherwise-liberal paper that has traditionally left viewpoints that conservatives should be championing for the Washington Times to print. But it also makes sense (except for some brief nonsense at the end).

For over twenty years, I have argued that it was politically important to securing the right to gun ownership to get women involved on the basis they, even more than men, need an "equalizer" for personal protection. That would make gun ownership politically correct at one level, and not an automatic no-go from the left. The amicus brief in the Heller case filed on behalf Women State Legislators and Academics (http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_women.pdf) makes it clear this has come to pass. You have only to read the table of contents to see it. What Lane brings up is that this has also been historically true for black Americans, giving yet another nod to gun ownership being PC. Excerpted from the piece:
"The Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 promised that "personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens." This was no theoretical concern. As senators noted during the debate on the bill, many Southern states sought to reimpose legal bans on gun ownership by blacks -- leaving them at the mercy of Klansmen and other white terrorists."

Charles Lane, Washington Post, 22MAR08That is only part of what he has to say on the matter. It is a recommend read. Lane concludes with a typically lame mainstream liberal press statement that in modern times self-defense may not outweigh criminal misuse of firearms, something John Lott, among many others, has shown to be wholly incorrect, but his last sentence, which sounds a bit resigned, ends in a true statement.

My jaw hit the floor reading that unclenick. Very good link for everyone to read.

Cheezywan

I just read through (quickly) an article that raises a new twist to the 2nd Amendment argument in DC. Now, maybe you folks who pay close attention might be aware of this, but until now, I'd never heard this. Some are now arguing that the 2nd Amendment was, in large part, included to appease Southern states' fear of slave rebellion. Madison and other used the fear of rebellion as rhetoric: the right to bear arms wasn't so much for fear of the government, but rather, losing slaves.
The argument was offered by Carl T. Bogus in his work 1997 "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment".
Google Scholar doesn't seem to have it available, but I may be able to get a copy from other sources. Given the current state of the Presidential race, this could make the debate even more heated.

jonas

I perused the beginning of the document and saved it down to my computer for further review when I have some time to read it and digest it, but from what I have read and from the comments in this thread, I'm encouraged that my rights to firearms ownership are going to remain securly in place.

. . . Some are now arguing that the 2nd Amendment was, in large part, included to appease Southern states' fear of slave rebellion. Madison and other used the fear of rebellion as rhetoric: the right to bear arms wasn't so much for fear of the government, but rather, losing slaves.
The argument was offered by Carl T. Bogus in his work 1997 "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment". . .

I'm not sure what to make of work by a scholar with the unfortunate (for a scholar) name of "Bogus"? It does sound rather like an attempt to discredit the Second Amendment's validity, and a pretty lame one at that. The whole function of the Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of the Congress to impose laws on the citizenry. It seems unlikely they would feel a need to create an Amendment to prevent government from siding with rebelling slaves, even though some elements of the South probably wished there had been such an Amendment at some point during the first half of the 1860's.

My understanding is that the Amendment's concept is rooted in English common law rights with which the framers were all familiar and which long preceded the Revolutionary War. There is a well-researched short history of the Second Amendment by David T. Hardy in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy from 1986. Most of it is about periods of law and thought preceding the Bill of Rights. You can read it here (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html). The origin of the idea of each man being armed is very old and predates modern ideas of citizenry in England, applying even to feudal serfs and other subjects.

Hardy writes:"The concept that there is a relationship between individual ownership of weaponry and a unique status as "free Englishmen" antedates not only the invention of firearms but also the Norman-English legal system. The great English legal scholar, William Blackstone, attributed the development to Alfred the Great, asserting: "It seems universally agreed by all historians, that King Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom, and by his prudent discipline made all the subjects of his dominion soldiers ...."[12] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn12) Recent historical research has suggested that this is an understatement. The early militia, or Fyrd, can now be traced at least to A.D. 690; indeed, it is likely that "the obligation of Englishmen to serve in the Fyrd of people's army is older than our oldest records."[13] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn13) It is in any event clear that, centuries before the Norman conquest, the Saxons had evolved a military and political system in which every free man was obligated by law to possess the weapons of an infantryman and to serve in the Fyrd.[14] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn14) Under these laws, "every land holder was obligated to keep armour and weapons according to his rank and possessions; these he might neither sell, lend nor pledge, nor even alienate from his heirs."[15] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn15)This concept <small id="pg563" class="pg">(p.563)</small>was radically different from the Continental feudal system, which revolved around mounted and armoured men at arms and limited the right of armament, and the duty of fighting in defense, to a relatively small and wealthy class.[16] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html#fn16)

David T. Hardy, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, pp 559-638 (1986)

Mr. Clement held firm to his position that the high court should be careful not to create rigorous constitutional protections that might create a right for Americans to own any and all military-grade weapons, including machine guns. "It is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the national guard, and that's what the machine gun is," Clement said.

Seriously, I think the DC lawyer definitely had a point here... From the stuff I read by the Founding Fathers, I really do think they thought civilians should have the right to own what the military has... Seems to me the 2nd Ammendment was really about protecting the people from their own government, not from robbers. Not that I want a bunch of YAHOOS running around with TOW missle systems, but....:eek:

Jim


That is exactly what it means. The founding fathers wanted WE the People to be able to overthrow the government in case tyranny got out of hand.

When the dust settles, Heller v District of Columbia will be remembered for either:

The Second Amendment represents an individual right subject to strict scrutiny - which requires that certain fundamental rights may not be infringed unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

OR

The Second Amendment represents an individual right of a lower standard, subject to any reasonable restriction.l
<!-- / message -->

The founding fathers wanted us, the people, to be able to withstand tyranny from ANY government, even our own if necessary.
The more armed the people are throughout a country the more difficult it is to put chains on them.
The more the government is involved in paperwork of individual firearms the easier it is to follow who has them and where they are....kinda like in the beginning of the movie "Red Dawn"....and it wouldn't matter what government is looking, ours or theirs.

As I posted in another thread, an attorney friend of mine sees it this way:
"As for the Heller case, I suspect the court will hold that it is an individual right but allow so many restrictions that the distinction between an individual right and a collective right will be almost irrelevant. An individual right subject to "reasonable" regulation as opposed to a fundamental right is a very different standard. The court often defines "reasonable" with what is informally called the "straight face test." That is, if congress can claim with a straight face that the regulation is reasonable than the court will uphold it. A fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny which would likely overturn most any infringement. I suspect we will end up with the former rather than the latter giving us a nominal victory without most of the spoils. Such a ruling however could pave the way for future litigation."I think the court's original idea that they would limit the scope of the decision to D.C.'s handgun-in-the-home ban is why he thinks this. It is interesting, from the standpoint of sociological bias, that all the emphasis goes to defense in the home. Paxton Quigley (http://www.paxtonquigley.com/), in her book, Armed and Female, points out that 80% of attacks on women occur when they are in transit; between work and home, work and shopping, shopping and home, school and home, etc. In other words, allowing citizens to be armed only at home is to limit their access to a means of self-defense in a minority of likely assault situations.

Nick:

Good point. Of course the argument there is that A) that's what the police are for and B) we can't have a bunch of people "running around with guns" in the streets. I'm not agreeing, mind you.

All of this (DC debate) seems to bypass the details of cause and effect. DC has its gun laws, why? In order to lower what are very high crime/violence rates, right? Has there been any proof offered that preventing citizens from owning handguns has prevented criminals from using guns? My point is, while this becomes a large 2nd Amendment case, the actual everyday realities seem a bit more clear. It's fairly obvious that gun laws (restrictive or relaxed) aren't the concern of those breaking laws.

And at what point will the case of London/England be brought up. Are there not studies that show their de-arming of their citizens (and police?) has in fact not reduced violence/crime?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Just a thought...

jonas

NOt to sound picky but the "that's what the police are for" arguement doesn't apply in DC. In an earlier case the court stated that the police weren't in any way obligated to protect the public..... I really wonder what the DC court feels the police are for.

I was listening to the oral arguments Tuesday, and as a machinegun owner, I was disappointed to hear them dismissed out of hand. Whenever a justice made some comment like "...of course that wouldn't include things like machineguns...", Gura would instantly respond with "Of course not".
At the time, I thought- He's doing a good job overall, but thanks for nothing on that one.

But after some thought, and reading Alan Gura defending that tactic the next day, I think he did the right thing.
He basically said that had he opened that can of worms, he would have achieved nothing toward what he was there for, and would have in fact set everything back for years.
He's right.
The MG argument is going to have to wait for another day, and we can't get to it without getting past this.

jonas .. there are studies that prove crime can go down when the silent majority are policing
society ,also..when allowed to arm themselves in an world where all races and cultures
come togather as in this U.S... the real thing i fear in this country,, is our finally being duped into losing the right of the citizen to bear arms .. this says [we trust govt to hold the course of govt of the people, by the people, for the people..] our fore fathers didnt believe we could take that for granted[2nd amendment] and i dont..an un armed society is one that is ripe for the picking.. today there are just too many factions that would simply rather have an absolute power govt..many have given up on this great experiment called the United States..BUT NOT ME AND IM NOT ALONE.. i believe theres an silent majority out there ,that while a bit lazy ,still want the experiment to continue..
in fact one of the dangers is they take it for granted..vote,,vote intelligently..

Don't get me wrong, I'm on no way arguing against the 2nd Amendment. But, it's important to be aware of the argument surrounding the debate. The response cannot always be reduced to 'I interpret things my way and you yours.' I bring up the slavery issue and London as issues that complicate and illuminate the debate. The only debate to have is a smart one. It's too easy to stand fast to a "side" without engaging the details.

jonas

Barry in IN:

I too was taken aback by the automatic weapons response. The "...in common use" phrase also has many pitfalls if it is taken to mean in common civilian use as opposed to common military use. The 1934 NFA, as originally written, included all handguns in the catagory of "taxable firearms." Would handguns be considered "...in common use" today if these arms were subject to the same restrictions as a submachine gun.

Of course if the BATFE continues to make up regulations as it goes along, such as in the case of the Atkins Accellerator that facilitated the rapid pulling of a semi-auto trigger to simulate full auto.

I fear SCOTUS will acknowledge an individual right to keep and bear arms subject to "reasonable regulation," this would in effect gut the 2nd Amendment of any real meaning.

The SCOTUS decision I want to see, is the declaration of a "fundamental" right of citizens to keep and bear arms. A fundamental right may not be infringed unless the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a demontrably compelling government interest.

Ralph

Does anyone know how the judges digest all the testimony they've gotten? ALthough the oral arguments may have not filled in all the gaps, don't the Amicus Curie briefs pretty much make our case? Do the judges, or their clerks, read all the briefs or do they just rely on the oral arguments?

NOt to sound picky but the "that's what the police are for" arguement doesn't apply in DC. In an earlier case the court stated that the police weren't in any way obligated to protect the public..... I really wonder what the DC court feels the police are for.

Although I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV:

This is established case law all over the United States. Don't believe it?
Try suing your city for the failure of the police to protect you from an assault.

Ralph

i agree.. best know all sides of the argument.. even tho i differ with their point of view..
that said ,let their be no compromise on the 2nd ammendment.. let it be what our forefathers meant it to be..they had seen oppression and absolute govt..thats the way the govts of the powers that be, were in that day.. thats why the safe guard was added.. this thing of individual
equeal rights for the common man was just a dream .. i think they pulled off a miracle really..
mabe they had some unseen help .. they sure thought they did..let the experiment continue .. best to you ,brother. slim

Agreed, Slim: it's not a perfect model, but so far, sure seems like the best model so far!

cheers,

jonas

Leverite,

They read it all and do their own research and discuss the case in chambers. That's why it takes them so long to make decisions and write decisions that speak for the majority and also dissenting opinions. You can read some on almost anything to get the flavor of it. The Amicus briefs are to assist in that process and to provide examples of who is affected and how. Going to original intent by dint of research is what these justices live for, though. It's a classic constitutional law case, even though the court has narrowed its scope in advance.

Leverite,

They read it all and do their own research and discuss the case in chambers. That's why it takes them so long to make decisions and write decisions that speak for the majority and also dissenting opinions. You can read some on almost anything to get the flavor of it. The Amicus briefs are to assist in that process and to provide examples of who is affected and how. Going to original intent by dint of research is what these justices live for, though. It's a classic constitutional law case, even though the court has narrowed its scope in advance.

unclenick...thanks for the info. So they have all the info. Amazing that they've made such lousey decisions in the past. The two new guys will help a lot.

Guys:

This is an important topic, but i am going to ask that topics related to [ie the full auto discussion] be all in the same thread, and not a new one. No need to rehash the same thoughts that are currently being discussed in this thread.

To that end, Ralph, I merged your last two new threads into this one thread, as they both have to do with the discussions of the second Amend.

thank you.

i was listening to analysts break this down the other night and one of them brought up a very good point. the first thing hitler did was take away the ability of the citizens to rise up against him. not that me or anyone in this thread is planning an uprising against the government, i believe as previously stated is several posts, having this right and ability keeps a lot more people honest. i also agree with the statement that its not the responsibility of the police to protect us from assaults and the such. i thought this is the reason that concealed carried has been legalized by many states. also previously stated, is the fact that this ban isnt going to affect the criminals because they are going to have weapons anyways and dont care whether it is legal or not. i kno this argument is extremely complicated and will have many future implications, however, given these points i think it is very clear what the outcome SHOULD be.

I read over the oral arguments, and have a few observations:

1) Both sides had cases prepared to present, but were cut off from presenting them by the justices' questions. The justices just weren't in any mood to hear a canned presentation.

2) The anti's went first. The justices jumped all over the presenters with counter arguments and questions that were clearly from the opposite point of view. The attorneys were on the run. I was elated.

3) The pro's went second. The justices jumped all over the presenters with counter arguments and questions that were clearly from the opposite point of view. The attorneys were on the run. I was dismayed.

4) The justices appeared prepared and had all of the history and arguments on the tips of their tongues. They weren't there to gather any new info, they just wanted a good old-fashion debate.

5) I think their minds were already made up - they just wanted some fun, and maybe to pick up a couple points to quote in their Opinion. I don't think one can predict from the debates which way this might swing.

.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/huff/huff12.html

Great read!! that perfectly explains what's "right" with this countries Constitution and what the consequeces can be if it's not allowed to be what it's designed to do..... keep "the people" free from government abuses.

Click here to hear another point of view from one of America’s leading Constitutional Scholars: Dr. Edwin Vieira (http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/vieira-heller.mp3).

http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?cat=8

A good, if sarcastic look at the attitudes of those involved in the Heller case on both sides.