Today was the big day

SCOTUS heard the arguments as to how much regulation a city/district can impose on its citizens regarding gun rights.

To me it seemed that Justice Scalia really went out of his way to rake Dellinger (DC's Gun-grabbing lawyer) over the coals. No surprise there.

Here are my favorite quotes.

Justice Kennedy: "So in your view this amendment has nothing to do with the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves, despite maybe an attempt by the Federal Government, which is what the Second Amendment applies to, to take away their weapons?"

Justice Stevens “The right to keep and bear arms for common defense” is the normal way of reading it.

Justice Scalia: “I don’t see how there is any, any, any contradiction in reading reading the second clause as personal guarantee and the first one as assuring the existence of a militia... the militia that resisted the British was not state managed….why isn’t it perfect reasonable, indeed plausible to assume that the framers KNEW that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants was not passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons. That is how militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully.”

Justice Alito: "If the amendment even partially protect a self right to self defense, how can a total ban withstand?"

Chief Justice Roberts: "What is - what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?... So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's alright if you allow possession of newspapers."

Chief Justice Roberts: ... "If the District passes a ban on machine guns or whatever, then that law - that law would be considered and perhaps would be upheld as reasonable. But the only law they had before them was a total ban. Justice Scalia (interrupts): "Or a law on the carrying of concealed weapons, which would include pistols of course."

Chief Justice Roberts: "I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn't it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can't take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these - how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?... I don't know why when we are starting afresh, we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case?"

Justice Souter: Can we also look to current conditions [for developing reasonable restrictions] like current crime statistics?
Gura: To some extent, Your Honor, but they have certainly...
Justice Souter: Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in Washington D.C. using handguns?
Gura: If we ere to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review Your Honor.
Justice Scalia: All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun

Chief Justice Roberts: So a conscientiouis objector who likes to hunt deer for food, you would say, has no rights under the Second Amendment. He is not going to be part of the militia. He is not going to be part of the common defense, but he still wants to bear arms. You would say that he doesn't have the rights under this Amendment?

Justice Kennedy: "So in your view this amendment has nothing to do with the right of people living in the wilderness to protect themselves, despite maybe an attempt by the Federal Government, which is what the Second Amendment applies to, to take away their weapons?"

Justice Stevens “The right to keep and bear arms for common defense” is the normal way of reading it. "

Justice Alito: "If the amendment even partially protect a self right to self defense, how can a total ban withstand?"

Chief Justice Roberts: “If it is limited to state militias, why would they say the right of the people? Why wouldn’t they say the right of the militia to bear arms?”

Justice Kennedy: "It had nothing to do with the concern 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?"

This one bears repeating...

Justice Scalia: “I don’t see how there is any, any, any contradiction in reading reading the second clause as personal guarantee and the first one as assuring the existence of a militia... the militia that resisted the British was not state managed….why isn’t it perfect reasonable, indeed plausible to assume that the framers KNEW that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants was not passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons. That is how militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully.”

District of Columbia vs. Heller.

I am getting concerned about this case. The Question Presented is “Whetherthe Second Amendment forbids D.C. from banning the private procession ofhandguns, while allowing the possession of shotguns and rifles.”

Meanwhile, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted stating“Whether the provisions in the D.C. Code violate the second amendment rightof individuals who are not affiliated with any state regulated militia, butwho wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in theirhomes.”

Arguments will be heard on Tuesday, March 18. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/07-00290qp.pdf Both “Question Presented” and the “Writ of Certiorari” could be answereddifferently. The question is whether a district can enact a law without regard to theconstitution.

In Miller vs. Texas, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that “a state law forbiddingthe carry of dangerous weapons does not abridge the privileges orimmunities of Citizens o the United States.” The conclusion seems tosuggest that the Bill of rights refer to the Federal Government, and notthe states.

Likewise in Presser Vs. Illinois, SCOTUS ruled that the Secondamendment only applied to the federal Govt and not upon the states, On the other side, U.S. Vs. Cruikshank in 1876, Brown vs Walker in 1896 andin Robertson vs. Brown in 1987, SCOTUS found that the first ten amendmentsare granted to all free citizens in a way not founded by Govt or theconstitution, but were inalienable rights. This seems to create a paradoxby saying they are inalienable rights for the Feds, but not for the states.

While SCOTUS has treated the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, SCOTUShas allowed for states to enact laws restriction the possession of firearmsin PUBLIC places. That is why the crux will weigh strongly on the phrase“private use in their homes.”