Just North of Marble Falls, Texas, April 2007

The Audio File of the Arguments Can Be found Here

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Full contact info at end

DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/17/08

24 Hours Prior to Heller Case

by Alan Korwin, Co-Author

Supreme Court Gun Cases

More people are on line in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for the D.C. gun ban case tomorrow than seats are available, and the temperature is hovering above freezing, but that's not stopping them.

  Bob Blackmer and I were the first to arrive, Sunday night about 5 p.m., answering the big question of -- Would two nights in advance be enough -- aside from did we have endurance to pull that off.

A few moments later, Jason and Dan arrived from Pennsylvania with sleeping bags and the same question in mind -- would they be in time for the biggest Second Amendment case in the nation's history, and, yes, they were. With no one else around, and the Sup. Ct. police officer pumped for all the info he might have (precious little), Bob and I left for our hotel, confident that we would be in time in the a.m., and Jason and Dan became numbers one and two in line, a distinction the media would dwell on the next day. (Reporters kept zeroing in on Jason since he was number one in line, and fortunately, he was articulate, a poli sci grad, not the bubba the media so often isolates as a "typical" example.

Rest of article is here

Guns case goes to Supreme Court

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia is asking the Supreme Court to preserve the capital's ban on handguns in a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

A Washington resident who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is challenging the 32-year-old ban as a violation of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.

Click for full story
The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear in the hearing on District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government could put on access or use of a weapon.

Full analysis of Court's look at Sefl-Defense

Gun-Rights Showdown

By RANDY E. BARNETT

March 18, 2008; Page A22

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a suit brought by several D.C. citizens contending that the ban on the possession of operable firearms inside one's home violates the Second Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. agreed and held the ban to be unconstitutional. However it is decided, Heller is already historic. For the first time in recent memory, the Supreme Court will consider the original meaning of a significant passage of the Constitution unencumbered by its own prior decisions. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case will be taught in law schools for years to come. Here's a layman's guide to the significance of the case:

The Wall Street Journal

Justices agree on right to own guns

By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Americans have a right to own guns, Supreme Court justices declared Tuesday in a historic and lively debate that could lead to the most significant interpretation of the Second Amendment since its ratification two centuries ago.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

Latest story
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01

Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

  The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

  "This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment."

The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service.

The complete article can be found here.

Lawyer in D.C. gun case doesn't own one

By STEPHEN MANNING, Associated Press Writer

Mon Mar 17, 7:14 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.

But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.

The news article can be found here.

The Second Amendment comes before the Supreme Court:

The Issues and the Arguements

Brief excerpt: (nothing new, different example) Consider a simple example. Suppose that a college dean announces: “The teacher being ill, class is cancelled.” Nothing about the dean’s prefatory statement, including its truth or falsity, can qualify or modify the operative command. If the teacher called in sick to watch a ball game, the cancellation of the class remains unaffected. If someone misunderstood a phone message and inadvertently misled the dean into thinking the teacher would be absent, the dean’s order is not thereby modified.

The Second Amendment’s grammatical structure is identical, and so are the consequences. Whatever a well-regulated militia may be, or even if such a thing no longer exists, the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” What’s more, whether or not such a militia can contribute to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms remains unaffected. Indeed, even if it could be proved beyond all doubt that disarming the people is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would remain unchanged.

Complete Article Here

DC Gun Rights: Do You Want This Next to Your Bed?

By Harry Jaffe

Should DC residents be allowed to have guns in their homes? The US Supreme Court is about to decide, and where you stand on handgun laws depends in part on where you live, where you come from, and what’s been done to you.

Dig into the debate over gun rights that will be argued when the Supreme Court takes up the District of Columbia’s gun ban and you will find the tale of Adrian Plesha and the burglar.

It is not a stretch to say that Plesha’s story triggered the Supreme Court case.

Full Story
Guns case goes to Supreme Court

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia is asking the Supreme Court to preserve the capital's ban on handguns in a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

A Washington resident who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is challenging the 32-year-old ban as a violation of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.

Click for full story
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Bill of Rights is almost entirely a declaration of individual rights held by “the people.” Petitioners, however, contend that the Second Amendment somehow stands strangely alone among the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights by protecting only a collective right of state governments to arm and maintain formal militias. In support of this proposition, Petitioners insist that Supreme Court precedent refutes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That assertion is incorrect. Rather, the Supreme Court has never settled the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, nor has it held that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of state governments to maintain organized militias.

Complete Brief here

  This brief states what I've been saying for years; Miller was never resolved and didn't set a president of militia over individual.

That's right, the Miller question was never answered. The SCOTUS, on the question of the short-barreled shotgun, sent the case back to Judge Ragon's court for further findings and this on top of the fact the defense was not even represented during the SC hearing. Paul Guttensohn, Esq., decided he had done enough pro bono work for Miller and Company. The US Assistant AG, apparently to keep from losing his arse a second time, offered Layton a plea to a lesser charge for time served and Layton pleads out. Miller was supposedly dead by then. On 8 January 1940 Frank Layton was placed on probation for five years. And ever since, anti-gun courts have lied and said Miler made it a state/militia right, not an individual right. What's an even bigger FU by the courts is that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people; it limits Congress' actions. Only the Tenth grants/acknowledges that ALL rights not granted the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people.

Despite the backing of much of Congress and many Civil Rights groups, I have a bad feeling about this case. I do NOT trust Robert's Rogues to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights and limit government over people's rights.

Sam

And three more articles

Justices Agree on Gun Rights

Justices skeptical of DC Gun ban

Court Weighs Rights and Limits

And a closing analysis by Alan Korwin Click here