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 .