Debate will continue until June after Tuesday's oral arguments in McDonald v Chicago.
It lasted 63 minutes, but when all was said and done ... there will be a lot more said and done.
Until June, of course, when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which could determine the extent that local governments can limit the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.
As Larry Keane, NSSF Senior VP & General Counsel, reports in an account filed on opposingviews.com hours after oral arguments ended at 11:16 a.m. Tuesday, attorneys focused more on how states incorporate the Second Amendment rather than should it be incorporated.
Keane writes: "Lawyers ... Alan Gura on behalf of the petitioners, McDonald, et. al., and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, for the National Rifle Association, took two separate and distinct paths in their arguments. Gura argued that the High Court should reverse the 7th Circuit’s decision on the grounds that the Second Amendment is an incorporated right through the Fourteenth Amendment’s 'privileges and immunities' clause, while Clement focused his argument on the Fourteenth Amendment’s 'due process' clause.'"
Meanwhile, he added, Chicago's attorney "appeared to concede that a state could not ban guns outright as it would take away the right of self-defense," yet was "attempting to re-litigate Heller, making the same failed argument that the Second Amendment is tied to state militias."
One alarming note: In asking if the Second Amendment applies to states, Justice [Stephen] Breyer "discussed the role of legislators making policy decisions about firearm regulations. He said that the choice for these legislators is between 'guns and life.'"
"I found this comment shocking," Keane writes, "as it implies that guns equal death, completely disregarding the fact that firearms are used three to five times more often in self-defense [thereby saving lives] than in the commission of a crime."
For more, click here. Transcript of oral arguments here.
Related:
Comments (8)
The criminals WILL have guns, and will not be alone.
I WILL have a gun anyway, & WILL use it to protect my home & family.
till june are they just draging this out in hopes it will go away.the people of chicago should be able to protect and defend themselves and their property its a right.
It seems that Justice Breyer has a factual disconnect with reality. Apart from that, I see a lot more good news than bad news here. It's good that they are arguing both the privileges & immunities clause and the due process clause. I think the best outcome would be for the Court to rule based on the privileges & immunities clause with additional reasoning from the due process and equal protection clauses, but that's probably too much to hope for--I'll settle for a win. I feel pretty good about the outcome, but I won't believe it 'til I see it.
The Founding Fathers would be astounded that this is even being debated in the SCOTUS. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
Reference: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress, Mansucript Division, Microfilm Roll #4
and
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, Lipscomb and Bergh, ed., vol. 16 (45)
Again T.J. was right when he wrote, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."
Reference: Jefferson Writings, Peterson, ed., 344.
Patrick Henry said "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 3 (659)
But the libs would tell us that guns in the hands of the people was not in their intent with the Second Amendment.
They are liars all of them.
Gentlemen, I am surrounded by guns... and I feel much safer with them around!
"guns equal death" The most natural thing besides life is death with or with out guns your still going to die.
This is why we as voters need to unite against repressive politicians. It is time to fly the come and take em flag.
Not being a legal scholar, I'm personally amazed that there's any debate. What purpose does the Bill of Rights serve if it can be limited by state and local governments? If it's limited to Federal enclaves, it would seem to be irrelevant to 99.9% of the population. Where is the public outrage? Have local governments restricted speech on the subject so that there is no outcry? Of course they have not, speech is protected by the Bill of Rights.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
The Founding Fathers would be astounded that this is even being debated in the SCOTUS. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
Reference: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Library of Congress, Mansucript Division, Microfilm Roll #4
and
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition, Lipscomb and Bergh, ed., vol. 16 (45)
Again T.J. was right when he wrote, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."
Reference: Jefferson Writings, Peterson, ed., 344.
Patrick Henry said "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 3 (659)
But the libs would tell us that guns in the hands of the people was not in their intent with the Second Amendment.
They are liars all of them.
This is why we as voters need to unite against repressive politicians. It is time to fly the come and take em flag.
"guns equal death" The most natural thing besides life is death with or with out guns your still going to die.
till june are they just draging this out in hopes it will go away.the people of chicago should be able to protect and defend themselves and their property its a right.
Not being a legal scholar, I'm personally amazed that there's any debate. What purpose does the Bill of Rights serve if it can be limited by state and local governments? If it's limited to Federal enclaves, it would seem to be irrelevant to 99.9% of the population. Where is the public outrage? Have local governments restricted speech on the subject so that there is no outcry? Of course they have not, speech is protected by the Bill of Rights.
Gentlemen, I am surrounded by guns... and I feel much safer with them around!
It seems that Justice Breyer has a factual disconnect with reality. Apart from that, I see a lot more good news than bad news here. It's good that they are arguing both the privileges & immunities clause and the due process clause. I think the best outcome would be for the Court to rule based on the privileges & immunities clause with additional reasoning from the due process and equal protection clauses, but that's probably too much to hope for--I'll settle for a win. I feel pretty good about the outcome, but I won't believe it 'til I see it.
The criminals WILL have guns, and will not be alone.
I WILL have a gun anyway, & WILL use it to protect my home & family.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)