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.”