District Of Columbia Vs. Heller

*Scroll for Updates*

Oral arguments are about to conclude in the D.C. gun ban case. There is supposed to be audio and written transcripts available immediately following the hearing. As soon as I can get a link to those, I will post them here.

*Update - 11:16*
Looks like C-SPAN will carry audio and/or video beginning at 11:30 a.m. this morning.

SCOTUSBlog is said to be live blogging the audio immediately following the hearing.

*Update - 11:22 a.m.*
Clayton Cramer has photos he took of the crowds camped out outside the Supreme Court building last night.

*Update - 11:24*
Correction - SCOTUSBlog live blogging is at this link.

*Update - 11:30*
CSPAN Radio link can be found here.

SCOTUS Blog is reporting that someone inside the Courthouse has announced that the hearing will run until approximately 11:45.

*Update - 12:22*
Still waiting for the release of the audio of arguments in D.C. vs. Heller.
Here are some interesting observations made by Mark Sherman, Associated Press.

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?

*Update - 12:24*
Audio just began at CSPAN.

*Update - 12:30*

Walter Dellinger, attorney for D.C. is attempting to convince the court that the use of “militia” in 2A renders the Amendment as only referring to the right to militias only. Justices don’t seem very convinced so far.

*Update - 12:36*
Dellinger has his work cut out for him to convince the Justices that Heller has no rights because he wasn’t a member of a state militia.

Dellinger is trying to justify the banning of hand guns over rifles and shotguns. Says the District allows lawful citizens to have functioning weapons in their homes for self defense.

This argument of trying to differentiate between what is acceptable weapons and not is shaky ground and doesn’t appear to be convincing anyone.

I have heard one comment that the result of these arguments is nothing more than “grandstanding”.

Once again Dellinger is stating a “functioning” weapon is allowed.

Justice Alito questions whether a locked or disassembled gun is considered functioning.

Dellinger defers discussion on functioning weapons.

Dellinger is being asked explicitly why an outright ban on handguns is reasonable.

Dellinger concluded. My biased opinion was that his presentation was weak.

We are now listening to Paul Clement.

Clement is arguing for the Bush administration to send the case back to the lower courts for a more specific ruling.

Clement is arguing that certain weapons, machine guns and plastic guns aren’t intended to be weapons protected under 2A.

Clement is trying to preserve the federal government’s power to regulate weapons.

Interesting that the discussion is the Clement believes the term “bearing arms” means going hunting.

Clement is trying to inject meaning that a least a certain amount of 2A refers to military in order to allow the federal government to regulate what guns will be allowed.

Clement is wrapping up his arguments. Discussion is about the strict scrutiny given to the First Amendment should also be done with the Second.

Clement is doing nothing to allow gun owners to side with him because he says existing regulations are reasonable.

Clement is finished. Asking Court to interpret what is a firearm.

Alan Gura representing Heller now arguing. It is my understanding this is his first hearing at Supreme Court. Note: Fast talker.

A poll at SCOTUS Blog shows 90% feel Dellinger’s arguments were average or poor.

Gura is pointing out the “unreasonableness” of the ban on firearms in D.C.

My take on Clement’s argument is “unconvincing”.

Breyer asking for specific argument as to why the DC ban is unreasonable while citing the statistics on gun related crime, death and injury involving guns.

Gura argues proficiency in the handling of handguns makes for a stronger military.

Scalia asks and Gura agrees that the second clause in 2A is stronger in meaning than reference to military. Scalia refers to the second clause as “the operative clause”.

Breyer has returned to the reasonableness of banning handguns while allowing other weapons. Breyer says that handguns were not important as part of military use.

It’s quite obvious that even Gura agrees that there needs to be some regulation of guns.

Roberts is asking if weapons during the writing of 2A were the same as today.

Kennedy is suggesting that “Miller” is “deficient” and indicates Gura out to stop referring to that only case in trying to define appropriate weapons that could be banned.

SCOTUS Blog poll indicates that Clement’s arguments were 78% very good or average.

My opinion is that Scalia, Kennedy and occasionally Roberts keep baling Gura out.

Even Gura is not showing that he is a friend to gun rights. Presently suggesting regulations like gun registration, age limits, etc. are all reasonable. Very disappointing.

Stevens asks if the Second Amendment should read “not unreasonably be infringed”. Gura says yes.

Gura’s arguments have turned into defining and interpreting what should and shouldn’t be restricted. Gura even suggests limiting gun ownership to age 21 and older.

Talking about guns allowed on campus. Gura hedges.

Dellinger gets 10 mins for rebuttal.

Addressing reasonableness of trigger locks. Chief Roberts wants to know how many minutes it takes to remove a trigger lock. Roberts gets laughter in explaining about turning on the light and putting on his reading glasses so he can get the lock off.

Dellinger believes that the present restrictions on guns in DC are all reasonable and doesn’t unreasonably restrict one’s ability for self defense.

Argument is over. This is my initial take on this.

I thought Dellinger was not believable. I think his presentation that the Second Amendment was all about the military was weak and that in his final rebuttal the information he presented to the justices was misleading and inaccurate.

I thought Alan Gura’s presentation was even weaker than Dellinger’s and did very little to strengthen the hopes of gun owners in America. He was unable, in my opinion, to present facts to strongly show the Second Amendment was about an individual right and spent far too much time giving the justices reasons to regulate guns. He may have, yet I’m not strongly convinced, won the case that would restore some of the citizens of the District of Columbia’s right to self protection. It may end up being a continued ban on handguns but a removal of the requirement of trigger locks on long guns.

Solicitor General Paul Clements arguments I thought where scattered and did very little to convince the justices to return District of Columbia vs. Heller back to the lower courts for a different ruling.

The transcripts of the case have not been posted yet. You should be able to find them at this link. As soon as I know they are available, I will make a separate post.

D.C. vs. Heller - Oral Arguments. My assessment on the case.

More on District of Columbia vs. Heller

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• New Hampshire Man Dies in Fall While Hunting in New Zealand
• Truely One Of A Kind Elk Antler
• Deer Management Moves Into The 21st Century
• Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Gets Funding For New Building Project
• Ridgefield, Connecticut Hunt Considered Successful
• Attention Podcast Listeners, Audio and Video Enthusiasts
• Children Have A Fundamental Right To Both Parents After Divorce
• South Dakota Archery License Available at Reduced Rate
• Isn’t It Amazing?
• Open Air With Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!