"Live Blogging" of D.C. vs Heller at SCOTUS

[ELB]

SCOTUSBlog has the following announcement on its?/his?/her? (I guess it is "their") blog:

Tomorrow on SCOTUSblog: Full Coverage of “DC Guns� Oral Argument
Monday, March 17th, 2008 11:38 am | Jason Harrow | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

Tomorrow at 10 am eastern, the Court will hear argument in DC v. Heller - better known as the “DC Guns� case - and it is one of the most hotly anticipated oral arguments in recent memory. Only a lucky few will be allowed in the Courtroom tomorrow to watch the hearing, so we’ll be providing full coverage of all of the developments here on SCOTUSblog for everyone else.

The centerpiece of our coverage will be a “LiveBlog� of the oral argument based on the C-SPAN audio feed, and we’ll be debuting a new AJAX-based plugin to bring this to you. You won’t need to do or install anything special to take advantage of this new technology, but with this interface, we’ll be able to “push� updates to you without your needing to refresh your browser as you have in the past. Of course, though we’d love to deliver a true LiveBlog beginning at 10 am with the oral argument (as we have done in the past for the announcement of opinions, and will do again this spring), the Court does not feed oral audio into the press room as it does for opinion announcements, so a true LiveBlog is not possible given the Court’s ban on electronic equipment in the Courtroom. Still, we believe that having a live-updating “transcript� to the C-SPAN feed will allow you to follow the argument far more efficiently than by listening to the audio feed itself. Both the LiveBlog and the C-SPAN broadcast should begin at the close of oral argument, around 11:30 am.

In addition to the LiveBlog, we’ll also be bringing you instant analyses and links to other blogs and news articles, both in the LiveBlog interface and in separate posts. Tom will send his immediate impressions of what transpired at the conclusion of argument, and Lyle will weigh-in with his instant recap as well sometime after that. Overall, we hope that SCOTUSblog will be a resource throughout the day tomorrow for timely updates and analysis of this landmark case as well as a portal for finding further information around the web.

[Kalrog]

Despite SCOTUSBlog being run by one of the firms on the DC side - they have been a very impartial source for information. I plan on utilizing the live blogging as much as I can tomorrow.

[ELB]

The battle is joined:

Earlier reports and "live blogging of the audio feed here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Early report at SCOTUSBLOG says Justice Kennedy asking lots of questions, seeming to hold the view that the 2A "reaffirmed" the militia clauses of the constitution, and that the individual right to bear arms is "independent" of the militia clause.

Audio feed here: http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm. ... TV&Code=CS

[ELB]

Apparently the oral argument session ran overtime. 23 minutes I think?

Some early paraphrases:
=================
Justice Kennedy says the first clause of the Second Amendment can be read as reaffirming the militia clauses, and can be read to support an individual right to bear arms.

Chief Justice Roberts asks why the Framers would refer to "the right of the people" if the Second Amendment was not intended to protect an individual right.


Justice Scalia says he sees no contradiction between reading the second clause as guaranteeing an individual right and the first clause as affirming the importance of the militia. "The two clauses go together beautifully," Scalia says.

In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense. At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient� in that respect.

Roberts asks: "What is reasonable about a total ban on possesion?"

==============

So far, so good.

[ELB]

More cherry picked commentary:

=================

Dellinger [DC's guy} says there is no showing that rifles and shotguns are not sufficient for the purpose of self-defense. Scalia leaps from the bench and begins beating Dellinger with his own brief case, shouting,"FOOL!"

- OK, I made up the second sentence.

Scalia says the opinion below cannot be read to allow armor-piercing bullets and machine guns.

Dellinger says a hand gun, unlike a machine gun, is "concealable and movable."
- I guess he's providing reasons why a handgun is better suited for self-defense?

Alito says the law could be read to prevent individuals from using even legally owned weapons from using them in self-defense.


Dellinger attempts to reserve the remainder of his time,
- "I'm getting my butt kicked, and I need to regroup"
but the Chief asks him to remain at the podium.
- "Tough. Take it like a man."

Breyer returns to the issue of why DC's ban should be considered reasonable.

Scalia asks: "Doesn't well-regulated mean well-trained?"

===============================

[dukesean]

I have been glued to scotusblog all morning....

[ELB]

More:

Alito asks [to SG Clements] how the DC law could survive under any standard of review when it bans the weapon most commonly used for self defense.

- Do tell!

later...

Clement says all federal firearms laws would be upheld under the intermediate scrutiny the SG proposed.
- another reason to go to strict scrutiny...

Gura says the DC fails any standard of review because proficiency with handguns would further a militia purpose.

[stroo]

Sounds very encouraging. Kennedy is probably the swing vote and he seems to be buying into the individual rights argument.

[ELB]

I am attempting to get at least on comment/question by each justice, as a small, possibly incorrect indication of what he's thinking. Of course we already know what Justice Thomas will ask... :)

Now that Gura is up, "the other side" is speaking up.

==========================

Breyer asks why cities should not be given leeway to construct firearms regulations to meet local problems.

Gura says that military purposes are not the primary purposes of the Second Amendment.

Stevens asks how Gura can explain why neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution explicitly refers to self-defense.

Souter asks whether the anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that led to the adoption of the Second Amendment were premised on a concern for self-defense, as opposed to concerns over a powerful federal government.

Gura says, "Self-defense is the heart of the Second Amendment right."

Breyer asks whether Gura wants judges rather than city councils to determine the efficacy of trigger locks.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Edited to delete my comments, since I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut!!

Chas.

[lrb111]

If justice Scalia goes looking for a job, I nominate him for Pres of the NRA.

[ELB]

The Chief asks how long it would take to remove a trigger lock.
Dellinger says it takes a very short amount of time.
Dellinger says, "it took me three seconds. I'm not kidding."
- I am sure he did that after being awakened by his front door being kicked in at 3 a.m. And of course he was then able to LOAD HIS GUN, since every manufacturer/triggerlock I have seen says it is not to be used on a loaded handgun. ....GRRRR.

[iflyabeech]

The Chief asks how long it would take to remove a trigger lock.
Dellinger says it takes a very short amount of time.
Dellinger says, "it took me three seconds. I'm not kidding."
- I am sure he did that after being awakened by his front door being kicked in at 3 a.m. And of course he was then able to LOAD HIS GUN, since every manufacturer/triggerlock I have seen says it is not to be used on a loaded handgun. ....GRRRR.

Ha Scalia replied to this asking what kind of locks they were. When Dellinger said "...numerical....", Scalia said, . . "so I have to turn on the light, put my glasses on. . . . . " to laughter in the courtroom.


watching the DC idiots on cspan now. They have no clue...

[stroo]

After reading the whole string, it sounds to me like the Court will come down 5-4 or 6-3 (might pick up Breyer as well) finding that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right, upholding the Appellate Court decision overturning DC's laws, but not setting any standard and leaving open the possibility that it would find all current Federal laws to be reasonable regulations of the right. Basically finding that an individual has the right to own and use guns that are suited to defense in the home, i.e. rifles, shotguns and handguns but that the state can put in regulations that limit access to extremely dangerous weapons like machine guns, sawed off shotguns, bomb, etc, and that limit your ability to carry concealed weapons. If so, an "assault rifle" ban might still be upheld as constitutional. A ban on all semi-automatic weapons probably would not be.

If I am right, this decision will change the status quo very little. It will overturn DC's laws and might place Chicago and NY's laws at risk. Otherwise, I don't think it will have any effect.

[LarryH]

If I am right, this decision will change the status quo very little. It will overturn DC's laws and might place Chicago and NY's laws at risk. Otherwise, I don't think it will have any effect.

For the citizens (oops, subjects) in DC, Chi-town and NYC, that will likely be cause for rejoicing.

Such a decision should also make gun-grabbers think twice (or thrice) about trying to enact "reasonable restrictions" in the future.