18 March 2008


Updated: Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 2:12 pm -- C-SPAN is streaming live audio and video of interviews and commentary outside the Supreme Court, taking place now that oral arguments before the Justices has concluded.

Updated: Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 1:54 pm-- SCOTUSblog has initial analysis of the oral arguments thus far.

Updated: Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 11:10 am -- The SCOTUSblog.com LiveBlog is up. Click here to access it. The transcript is supposed to start running at approximately 11:30 am eastern. Just sit back and read. It will refresh itself with each post.


Updated: Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 11:03 am -- There are reports of demonstrations outside the Supreme Court building in Washington DC this morning, pitting gun ban and gun control activists against supporters of the right to self defense. Here is a report from the Associated Press.

This morning, at approximately 10 am eastern, oral arguments will be heard on what is being described as a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court.

At issue: the Constitution of the United States' Second Amendment. The second of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It's intent, it's meaning, its relevance in world far different from the largely agrarian culture during which it was adopted in 1787.

And whether it still protects all the other rights enumerated and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

District of Columbia v. Heller pits unfettered gun control against the intent of the Framers, and the needs of modern day citizens who have been disarmed out of political correctness, yet struggle to safely raise their families in one crime-riddled city. Yet the ruling will likely have implications that ripple across the nation.

For coverage, go to: SCOTUSblog.com. There, you will be able to hook into a system and receive a regularly updated online transcript of the hearing this morning, taken from the C-SPAN audio feed, which will start at around 11:30 am, eastern. At least, that's how the system is being advertised. I plan to keep abreast of what is going on that way.

A number of my fellow bloggers, Constitutionalists, scholars and interested parties have been drawn to Washington D.C. this week. Not unlike people who gravitate toward a city where a Super Bowl, or national collegiate football championship, is being held. You may not have tickets to the game, or in this case, may know that standing in the line that started forming two days ago on the steps of the High Court will be fruitless. But you just want to be there, in the same city . . . to witness history. I envy you.

The Court plans to rule in June or July -- just in time to further heat up what is already expected to be a hotly contested presidential race.

Not since Roe v. Wade have we seen such emotion regarding a right. Frankly, even more so, for the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The Court created that right, rightly or wrongly, by melding together various pieces of the Bill of Rights. But the Constitution, in the 2A, is very specific about the right to keep and bear arms. Gun controllers over a period of several decades have bastardized the meaning of language that was commonly used during the 1700s. Scholars and historians have worked hard to shed light on the true meaning, the intent of the Framers, of the 2A from that period.

This case is not about firearms. It is not about love of guns. It is not about "gun nuts," as the media or anti-self defense activists like to paint women who carry for personal protection, young people who safely take part in thousands of shooting competitions across this nation, or the teachers, painters, judges, doctors, lawyers, software developers, journalists, actors, real estate agents, teachers, librarians, plumbers, astronauts, housewives, police officers and others who enjoy firearms for hunting and as acquisitions for their collections. Nor is not about "people of the gun," as one columnist so snarkily wrote last year.

This case, this issue, is about the basic human right of self defense. But more importantly, it is about the Constitution. A right guaranteed . . . affirmed if that is the word you choose, by the Second Amendment, not granted by it. A right that has been nibbled away under false pretenses for decades.

It is about the future of a nation. And whether we live as citizens . . . or not.


Below is a roundup of the latest DC v. Heller news stories, and news releases (including one from a federal agency and another from an anti-gun organization apparently concerned that America isn't paying enough attention to its message).

New York Times (opinion) -- "The Court Considers Gun Control"
Los Angeles Times (opinion) -- "D.C. Gun Law Goes To Supreme Court"
Washington Post -- "An Old Hand At Court Gears Up for Battle"
Washington Post -- "For Young Area Lawyer, The Supreme Compliment"
Washington Post -- "Tickets Prized Just as Much As the NCAA Tournament's"
Washington Post -- "Among the Scattershot Arguments in the D.C. Gun Ban Case, Which Ones Will Hit the Mark?"
Law.com -- "Armed for Liberty: The Second Amendment defends the rights of a free people"
Boston Globe -- "Fighting For Our Rights"
The Oklahoman -- "High court's ruling could change rules on gun ownership"
CNN -- "Court decision on gun-control is personal for 2 women
FoxNews -- "Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument"
CBSNews -- "High Noon For The 2nd Amendment?"
Christian Science Monitor -- "Tyranny of a 'reasonable' gun ban: Rights, not legal fiction, should sway DC v. Heller."
Christian Science Monitor -- "Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights"
Times of London -- "US Supreme Court to hear landmark gun control case"
Wall Street Journal -- "Gun Rights Showdown"
ABC7, (Washington DC) -- "Constitution, Not Love of Guns, Drives D.C. Gun Ban Case"
Bloomberg.com -- "U.S. Court Takes Up Gun Rights After 217 Years of Saying Little"
Argus Leader (South Dakota) -- "Gun dealers wary of Supreme Court case"
New York Newsday -- "Lawyer in D.C. Gun Case Doesn't Own One"
Star-Telegram (Ft. Worth, Texas) -- "The D.C. gun ban must go"
Star-Telegram (Ft. Worth, Texas) -- "Texans have a stake in gun case"
USA Today -- "Do you have a legal right to own a gun?"
RTT Global Financial Newswire -- "Groups Say They're Watching D.C. Gun Case ‘Closely' "
BREITBART.com (via Associated Press) -- "Individual's Right to Bear Arms at Issue"
Associated Press (video news story) -- "SCOTUS debates Washington ban on handguns"
Washington Times -- "Nation awaits D.C. handgun ruling"
Washington Times -- "City ponders 'Plan B' if justices void gun ban"
The Foundry (Heritage Foundation) -- "Morning Bell: The Right To Self Defense"
OSHA (yes, that OSHA) -- "DC Steps Up Campaign Against Gun Violence "
Hawaii Reporter -- "Do Anti-Gun Laws Protect Us or Threaten Us?"
Violence Policy Center -- "Supreme Court Prepares to Hear DC Gun Case as National Support for Banning Handguns Hits 59 Percent: District's Law Necessary to Protect DC Residents, First Responders, Violence Policy Center Warns"
Slate.com -- "Just When You Thought You'd Had Your Fill of Commentary on the Gun Case . . . "

No comments: