GOA on the Heller opening arguments

[Prometheus]

Atleast ONE group has it right.


GOA's Message Goes Nationwide Following Yesterday's Supreme Court Hearing
-- USA Today runs GOA editorial

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

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/opposing-view-3.html#more

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

[nickb]

What scares me is the parallel drawn to restrictions of the first amendment. One Justice mentioned something like, free speech except for libel.... Which to me, leaves the whole question wide open.

[LKB3rd]

If they say that "reasonable restrictions" can be placed on it, thereby nullifying the true meaning of "shall not be infringed" we are in big trouble.
They will be turning it from a right into a privelege.
"Reasonable" to most here looks nothing like "reasonable" to a lot of politicians.
It would mean we would have to trust them to do the right thing, the VERY THING the second amendment gives us the ability not to have to rely on.

[TMP]

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.

WTF, come on Gura, get it right!!!! Where in the hell does it read "except for reasonable restrictions"?????????????????????

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by nickb

What scares me is the parallel drawn to restrictions of the first amendment. One Justice mentioned something like, free speech except for libel.... Which to me, leaves the whole question wide open.

Regrettably he missed something most reasonable people see.

You have the total right to free speech, but you can still be held accountable for what you DO with that speech.

I.E No one can stop you from slandering someone(except perhaps if you've been publicly discredited before), but you can be held civilly and criminally liable for it.

In this context the similarities to the second amendment become clear. No one can stop you from buying a gun. No one can stop you from shooting your neighbor (except maybe if he shoots first), but you will be held criminally and civilly liable for the damage you have called.

[nickb]

Originally Posted by robinsre

Regrettably he missed something most reasonable people see.

You have the total right to free speech, but you can still be held accountable for what you DO with that speech.

I.E No one can stop you from slandering someone(except perhaps if you've been publicly discredited before), but you can be held civilly and criminally liable for it.

In this context the similarities to the second amendment become clear. No one can stop you from buying a gun. No one can stop you from shooting your neighbor (except maybe if he shoots first), but you will be held criminally and civilly liable for the damage you have called.

Great example, yet people are held in contempt of court for speaking out when told not to. People are removed from court or public hearings for disruptive behaviour. (Don't tase me bro comes to mind since I'm sure he had more to say.) Speech is routinely interrupted by authority. Again, this is what scares me.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by nickb

Speech is routinely interrupted by authority. Again, this is what scares me.

Without interruption could any proceedings actually proceed?

[nickb]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

Without interruption could any proceedings actually proceed?

No, which is exactly why the parallel scares me. If "congress shall make no law" can be reasonably watered down by state & local laws, how will "shall not be infringed" fare?