National Gun Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Harley Dude
Joined
·
14,651 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wednesday, March 19, 2008


Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge to
the DC gun ban.

Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are five
votes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is an
individual right.

That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control and
protect gun owners' rights. But as we all know, that's where the battle over
the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.

More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney
for Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in
the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"?

To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did
qualify his answer
somewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this
"unreasonable standard
looks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his
answer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck
Schumer and Sarah
Brady.

Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the Second
Amendment. The language doesn't say anything about
"reasonable" or
"unreasonable;" it simply says the right of the people
"shall not be
infringed." It's a shame that even people on "our
side" don’t fully
understand that.

That's why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted,
the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today's editorial.
The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was
distinctive.

Indeed we do. GOA's brief says:

[T]he argument that "the right of the people" is subject to
reasonable
regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second
Amendment, reading the phrase -- "shall not be infringed"
-- as if it read
"shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve
public safety."

"Public safety" is frequently a canard that tyrants hide
behind to justify
their oppressive policies. Writing in USA Today, our attorneys Herbert
Titus and William Olson stated:

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its
actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for
high-sounding reasons such as
"public safety." A right that can be regulated is no
right at all, only a
temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.

For the rest of the editorial:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/ ... .html#more

For the GOA brief, and other important documents and briefs in DC v. Heller:
http://www.gunowners.org/hellertb.htm
 

·
Pro Gun Advocate
Joined
·
10,940 Posts
This is one time I agree with GOA's 'take no prisoners' philosophy.

Gura was thrown softballs and whiffed at every one.

The backer of this case was begged to put someone else inf front of the court (Gura has never argued a case in front of SCOTUS before), but the backer stuck by him.

Even one of the judtices asked DC how a complete ban could be called 'reasonable' by ANY standard. SCOTUS was more on our side than Gura.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top