With less than 24 hours before the United States Supreme Court begins hearing arguments in the District of Columbia vs. Heller gun ban case, the press is showing signs of eagerness to hit the courtroom and hear what each side has to say. What’s different about this case is that usually each side would get 30 minutes to argue, which they still do, but Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Bush administration, will get fifteen minutes to try to convince the court to send the case back to the lower courts for a more defined ruling saying it can’t declare the Heller case unconstitutional because it would strip the federal government of the power to regulate “reasonable” gun control.
For those interested in the debate leading up to this hearing, following this link will give you access to numerous articles with opinions, ideas, history and perspective from assorted individuals and groups for and against the D.C. gun ban ruling.
As the excitement builds, more people are second guessing what the Supreme Court will do. Others are working hard to convince the people they have the answer and understand the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written over 200 years ago.
USA Today has an article this morning sharing with readers some interesting facts about this case. There have been 67 “Friend of the Court” briefs filed about this case – the vast majority siding in favor of gun rights and against the D.C. gun ban.
The number of reporters requesting a seat in the Supreme Court hearing room is 70. This is comparatively large but not nearly as big as the largest seating of 121 in Bush vs. Gore, 2000.
The District of Columbia bases its argument that banning handguns makes the District safe. Heller claims the Second Amendment guarantees and individual the right to own a gun.
Others continue to weigh in on the debate heading into tomorrow’s historic hearing. A piece in KansasCity.com says the Court has its work cut out and wonders how far it is willing to go in making its ruling.
But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions, and whether the justices are ready to decide on the reasonableness of the ban could be crucial to the case.
Nathan Kozuskanich, an Assistant Professor of American History at Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario, says in the History News Network that on the basis of close historic usage of the two words, “bear arms”, proves that the use of those words in the context of the Second Amendment, clearly shows it referring to only a military usage.
Unfortunately for Mr. Kozuskanich there are 25 other words along with various punctuations that need to be considered as well.
Greg Stohr in the Bloomberg Press shares with readers what Randy Barnett, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, said about precedence in this case before the Supreme Court.
“This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to interpret an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent.”
There’s a very distinct possibility the Court will interpret the Second Amendment. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right and with no real clear rulings previous, may force the Court to render that decision. Another fact that has been used in arguments for years is that if the Second Amendment is an individual’s guarantee, then how do you explain the millions of happy gun owners in America today?
Robert Barnes writes in the Boston Globe that none of the nine Supreme Court justices have ever ruled in a case involving interpretation of the Second Amendment. Barnes also hints, as very few other mainstream media outlets have, that the decision could have consequences on the outcome of the presidential race.
The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about which 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.
I think the candidates are steering clear of this pending case until after a decision has been made, coming perhaps in June before the Court recesses. I have asked often why the candidates aren’t being quizzed on this case in more depth. All three candidates have made vague references to gun rights and all have indicated that they believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun. All three candidates also believe that certain “reasonable” restrictions are necessary. The problem comes in trying to determine exactly what is reasonable restrictions from each of the candidates.
Besides from past voting records, which shows Obama and Clinton strong on gun control, a hint of what might lie ahead comes from the fact that of those signing briefs in favor of ending the D.C. gun ban, only McCain inked his name along with briefs from 31 states and a majority of members of Congress. Obama and Clinton did not sign a brief representing either side.
Arguments will begin around 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Audio of the arguments will be made available immediately following – around 11:15 a.m.
More on District of Columbia vs. Heller
Tom Remington
