Heller Hearing Reports:

The Transcript:

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

..During yesterday's arguments, the justices seemed to assert that the
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms, while
questioning whether the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns is a
reasonable restriction permitted by the Constitution. Chief Justice
Roberts - appointed to the court by President Bush in 2005 - pointedly
questioned former Solicitor General Walter E. Dellinger III, who argued
for the District and its ban...But Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a
similar ban on books would be reasonable if citizens were still allowed
to read newspapers. "What is reasonable about a total ban on
possession?" the chief justice said..."And in my view, it supplemented
it by saying there"s a general right to bear arms quite without
reference to the militia either way," Justice Kennedy said...Robert
Cottrol, a professor at George Washington University's law school, said
comments that he saw by the justices yesterday stressed the idea that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right. He said only comments
by Justice John Paul Stevens could be possibly construed as favoring a
militia-only right to own a handgun...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/METRO/323214004/1001

..Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the attorneys very actively,
especially on the importance of self-defense in the Founding era.
Justice Kennedy suggested that even the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller
decision - which gun control advocates have often wrongly cited as
protecting only a "collective" right - was "deficient" and may not have
addressed the "interests that must have been foremost in the Framers'
minds when they were concerned about guns being taken away from the
people who needed them for their defense."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3691

A majority of the Supreme Court indicated a readiness yesterday to
settle decades of constitutional debate over the meaning of the Second
Amendment by declaring that it provides an individual right to own a gun
for self-defense. Such a finding could doom the District of Columbia's
ban on private handgun possession, the country's toughest gun-control
law, and significantly change the tone and direction of the nation's
political battles over gun control...Kennedy expressed, at least three
times during the argument, his disbelief that the Framers had not been
also concerned about the ability 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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801354.html?hpid=topnews

..Roberts, who has two young children, suggested at one point that
trigger locks might be reasonable. "There is always a risk that the
children will get up and grab the firearm and use it for some purpose
other than what the Second Amendment was designed to protect," he said.
On the other hand, he, too, wondered about the practical effect of
removing a lock in an emergency. "So then you turn on the lamp, you pick
up your reading glasses," Roberts said to laughter. Dellinger said he
opened the lock in three seconds, although he conceded that was in
daylight...

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Justices_second_amendment/2008/03/18/81449.html

..Mr. Dellinger asserted that at the time the Second Amendment was
drafted, "the people" and "the militia" were essentially synonymous;
therefore, he said, the amendment, its two clauses properly interpreted,
gave people the right to own weapons only in connection with their
militia service...Doesn't the argument that the people and the militia
were one and the same "cut against you," Chief Justice Roberts asked. If
the militia included everyone, he continued, "doesn't the preamble that
you rely on not really restrict the right much at all?" Tacking
slightly, Mr. Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general, replied that
the focus should be on "the scope and nature of the right that the
people have. It is a right to participate in the common defense," he
added...Alan Gura, representing Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard
who challenged the statute after his request for a license to keep his
gun at home was turned down, said that bans on the shipment of machine
guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable. Perhaps guns could be
banned from schools, Mr. Gura said in answer to questions...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19scotus.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

"We are confident," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "that the high court
will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means what
it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear
that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of
District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth
of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the
court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that
'the people' are all citizens."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-18-2008/0004776435&EDATE=

..A separate set of questions revolves around the legal standard the
justices might invoke to determine what gun restrictions stand. The
details of their ultimate ruling - not likely until June - could
determine the fate of a range of regulations nationwide, from a federal
prohibition on machine guns to licensing requirements in some cities. It
is difficult to predict the practical details of a decision, but it
seemed clear that a majority is ready to buck the general trend of lower
court judges and declare an individual right to bear arms. Most lower
court judges have ruled in recent decades that the Second Amendment
protects a right to arms associated with service in a state militia,
such as a National Guard unit. With barely a nod to those cases, key
justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggested they believed the Second
Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans' ability to protect
themselves, rather than militia-related interests...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-17-scotus-handguns_N.htm

The bottom line is, I think we're going to be OK. When Justice Kennedy
flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second
Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you
could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever
assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief - we
had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms. The
transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June, when the
decision is expected, and I'm working without the benefit of that at the
moment...

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b787fd0e-1bd2-4b77-9349-241bb28116ae

..But, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Once it is
established that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, the
question inevitably follows: Of what breadth? Other clauses in the Bill
of Rights, such as the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of
religion, are subject to various balancing tests and exceptions to the
general rule. Should a similar exception be applied here? It is here
that the Court was much more difficult to read. Justice Breyer seemingly
expressed the view that the right to keep and bear arms was subject to
"reasonable" regulation, and that in a city with high crime rates, a ban
on handguns would be reasonable. In essence, Justice Breyer seemed to
recognize the basic right, yet render it meaningless by subjecting laws
which affected the right to exceedingly low levels of scrutiny...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25583

..Because the District of Columbia is a federal entity, Heller provides
a clean application of the Second Amendment which, like the rest of the
Bill of Rights, originally applied only to the federal government.
Before a state or municipal gun law can be challenged, the Supreme Court
will have to decide that the right to keep and bear arms is also
protected by the 14th Amendment, which limits state powers. Nowadays,
the Court asks whether a particular right is "incorporated" into the Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, an unpopular doctrine among some
conservatives. Of course, after recognizing an unconditioned individual
right in Heller, affording it less protection from states than other
enumerated rights now receive would be awkward - especially given the
overwhelming evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was among the
"privileges or immunities of citizens" to which the 14th Amendment
refers. Those who wrote the amendment were concerned about enabling
black freeman and white Republicans in the South to protect themselves
from violence, including terrorism by local militias...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579647855943453.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

..Even if the court believes that a ban on an entire class of protected
weapons can sometimes be justified, it must conclude that regulations
like those in D.C. are subject to strict judicial scrutiny: government,
if challenged, would have to demonstrate that restrictions serve a
compelling state interest, will be effective at attaining the desired
goal and do not unnecessarily compromise Second Amendment rights. That
three-part standard has considerable teeth, but will not foreclose
legitimate gun regulations, such as sensible registration requirements,
proficiency testing, instant background checks, bans on massively
destructive weapons, and prohibitions on gun ownership by children,
mental incompetents and violent felons... (This from Robert Levy.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/COMMENTARY/517800568/1012

And From The Brady Bunch...: Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court
thoroughly discussed the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the
first time in nearly 70 years, in the District of Columbia v. Heller
case.  Their probing questions, and the lawyers' responses, highlighted
the complex history and competing approaches to gun regulation in our
country.  I am hopeful that their ruling will uphold the right of people
in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they
feel are needed to protect themselves and their families. One of the
reasons we have weak or nearly non-existent gun laws today is because a
lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits
our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. Today's arguments,
however, demonstrated broad support from all sides for responsible
regulations concerning guns. Think how much safer we all would be if we
made it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons nationwide,
not just in a few areas.

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=970
---

Ammo Serialization, Microstamping Debated in Connecticut: Gun and
ammunition manufacturers, retailers and a sportsmen's group Monday came
out firing against two gun-related bills that would require microscopic
markings to help identify certain guns used in crimes. The bills were
the subject of public hearings Monday at the Capitol. Senate Bill 603
would mandate laser engraving of a serial number on each round of
ammunition...Another proposed piece of legislation, Senate Bill 607,
would require manufacturers of semiautomatic firearms to "microstamp" or
laser engrave on the gun's firing pin an eight digit code that
identifies the make model and serial number...

http://www.industrial-lasers.com/display_news/159336/39/none/'Stamping'_guns,_bullets_debated:_Weapons_manufacturers_say
---

NRA Campaigns for Georgia Parking-Lot-Storage Bill: Eighty-thousand
postcards are in the mail to gun rights advocates and enthusiasts in a
number of state Senate districts, all bearing the message that the
Senate is blocking action on "the most important right-to-carry reform
bill in over 20 years." The postcards from the National Rifle
Association are tailored to the Senate district in which they are being
sent, and urge recipients, first, to call their local senator (phone
number and e-mail handily provided) and then to call Lt. Gov. Casey
Cagle...What the Senate passed on January 17 was a re-worked bill that
was essentially a victory for the Chamber, although it gave the NRA room
to claim something of a win, as well...

http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/restricted/2008/March%202008/3-18-08/NRA_Gun_Bill31819646.php


--
Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY

Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.

http://www.spw-duf.info