The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
DC Gun Ban Oral Arguments: A Very Compelling Transcript
Glenn Reynolds pointed today to SCOTUSBlog, which has up both streaming audio and a transcript of the oral arguments in the Heller vs. District of Columbia case.
As a gun owner who is "licensed" in my State to carry a loaded handgun on my person, the outcome obviously has a compelling interest for me. But I would go further that the arguments themselves makes fascinating reading because they demonstrate--even to the layperson--the sort of discussions that the Justices have about the Constitution. And it also shows pretty clearly where "rock solid" Justices like Scalia and "swing voters" like Kennedy come down on this particular .
The extra-Constitutionalist Justices like Ginsberg and Souter do not seem nearly so interested in my reading in directing their questions towards the intent of the framers (go figure...)--even though that is their sworn duty. They seem more interested in what Federal Law "applecarts" might be upset. But in this case, anyway, the fact that the moderates like Kennedy do take a key interest in the Framers' intent is a good sign that the DC Ban will be thrown out.
I could be reading the tea leaves wrong--my only legal training is in Family and Business Law for mediation purposes--but by my own analysis of the questioning, I am seeing at least 5 votes to throw the ban out. And maybe more.
This is an extremely interesting argument to read (or listen to) and ponder, if you have the time. Very, very compelling.
As a gun owner who is "licensed" in my State to carry a loaded handgun on my person, the outcome obviously has a compelling interest for me. But I would go further that the arguments themselves makes fascinating reading because they demonstrate--even to the layperson--the sort of discussions that the Justices have about the Constitution. And it also shows pretty clearly where "rock solid" Justices like Scalia and "swing voters" like Kennedy come down on this particular .
The extra-Constitutionalist Justices like Ginsberg and Souter do not seem nearly so interested in my reading in directing their questions towards the intent of the framers (go figure...)--even though that is their sworn duty. They seem more interested in what Federal Law "applecarts" might be upset. But in this case, anyway, the fact that the moderates like Kennedy do take a key interest in the Framers' intent is a good sign that the DC Ban will be thrown out.
I could be reading the tea leaves wrong--my only legal training is in Family and Business Law for mediation purposes--but by my own analysis of the questioning, I am seeing at least 5 votes to throw the ban out. And maybe more.
This is an extremely interesting argument to read (or listen to) and ponder, if you have the time. Very, very compelling.
