Legalities

Maybe the Court will chicken out and hew to the DOJ's position. Some blah on individual rights, then remand, thereby kicking the ball down the road.

Then again if I knew this was a blockbuster case I just might show some intellectual courage and come down on one side or the other . . .

Some of the more liberal justices may be privately concerned about how their vote will play during election season as well.

Mr. Heller:

So might some of the more conservative justices.

I stood in line four hours, only be turned away from a Supreme Court argument. Four hours is a bargain. Forty is a commitment. Bravo.

"The justices literally will be writing on a blank slate."

Actually, no. The Constitution is already written. I expect better from a Chicago grad.

The tenth amendment makes clear the distinction between the United States, the States, and the people.

The second amendment make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people.

As expressed in the tenth and second amendments, there can be no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right.

I don't believe that it could be made any clearer.

Actually, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, AND to form militias. A "free state" is essentially identical to "a free country". Just as free speech is essential to a free country, the right to keep and bear arms is essential to a free state.

Remember too, that the opening battle of our revolutionary war was triggered by an attempt by the British to seize the colonist's arms. The British were routed by volunteer militia - individual citizens acting in their own mutual defense - who were NOT part of a government-sponsored military.

My niece, a marine, just got back from Iraq and told me that her superiors were asking if they would be willing to go house to house in the United States to confiscate peoples guns. She said they answered overwhelmingly NO!

Mr. Heller: "Some of the more liberal justices may be privately concerned about how their vote will play during election season as well." The Court is not elected and their decisions should not be based on anything but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The anti-gun groups will be suffering a major defeat here. There is SO MUCH supporting the individual's rights that I am amazed that this is even a discussion.

I served in the US Air Force for six years.

If our superiors had suggested that we go out house to house in the United States to seize privately held arms, they would have had an armed insurrection on their hands.

I think that unfortunately, many media reports have framed this case in a way that distorts the issue. Every party to the case - including the district - agrees that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right. Read DC's brief; they say so quite clearly. Similarly, every party to the case believes that the individual right created is not absolute - no party in the case believes that the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from making it so that felons can't possess arms, or making certain types of guns illegal.

The operative question is what is the content of the individual right. Depending on the purpose of that right, the government may have more or less power to say "we think that citizens can best provide for our mutual defense through long guns, but not handguns." If you think the 2nd Amendment was about protecting people's rights to personally defend themselves against crime, then it makes sense that the government has no right to tell you what gun you can choose to do so. If you think the 2nd Amendment was about protecting the people's right to join together to defend against tyranny - whether from England or from the risk of a tyrannical central government, then there's much more reason to think that the states can, within limits, set policies for how their citizens do that.

Bill,

DC's brief does NOT indicate that the 2nd Amendment "creates" (I think you mean, "protects") an individual right. I don't know how on earth anyone could possibly think that.

You should read it again.

Furthermore, DC's brief also argues that it does not infringe upon a person's to self-defense, despite the DC statute prohibiting the keeping of an operable firearm in a person's house. Apparently, they expect a person to quickly locate their firearm, make it operable, and then finally load it all the time an intruder is in your home.

I'm pretty sure DC's brief argues the Second Amendment is just an extension of Congress's Article I powers to regulate the militia, not an extension of individual rights.

Actually, Jan, this is wrong:
"The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment protects a state’s right to form a militia."

As a U. of C. grad myself, I'm a little disappointed.

Article I of the Constitution, not any of the Bill of Rights, protects a State's right to form a militia. Article I provides for Congress to have this power:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;".

If the Bill of Rights has anything to say about this power, it must be that it negates some (or all) of it!

It's an individual right. The introductory clause is just an example of a reason for upholding this right. The expectation is that the citizens will, in time of need, bring their individual firearms to the aid of the militia. As such, the 2nd also protects military-style firearms (including so-called Assault Weapons), as upheld my the often misquoted Miller USSC case.

This (amazingly civil) comment thread indicates why we have a Supreme Court--both sides of this argument have merit. Those of you who say, "of course the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun, I can't believe anyone would think differently," are being dinengenuous--the Amendment as written could easily be interpreted to mean that people should have guns because militias would be impossible without that. That being the case, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the Constitution does not protect gun possession which does not serve this purpose (i.e. regulations on guns, including geographical restrictions like D.C.'s, do not interfere with the purpose of maintaining a militia and are therefore constitutional).

"the Amendment as written could easily be interpreted to mean that people should have guns because militias would be impossible without that. "

If you think this, then you haven't read much of the body of historical evidence that this was not the founder's intent, and - furthermore - you do not fully understand English.

"A well-educated Congress being essential to the proper framing of legislation, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed? does not limit books to members of Congress.

Also, of course a state militia would be armed. That goes without saying. So why would they need to say that in the Bill of Rights?

To respond to "What?," DC's brief *does* indicate that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. For the most recent example, see its reply brief, p5.

DC disagrees with respondent because they believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms in a manner reasonably related to one's militia service.

I agree with TBJW that there are reasonable arguments on both sides. The one thing relatively clear from the historical evidence though is that the 2nd amendment was not about personal self-defense. If you read the most important historical arguments over ratification, there is almost nothing about personal self-defense, and the vast majority of early pre-Civil War state cases say exactly the same thing.

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to repel foreign invaders, but to assure the ability to overthrow the government if it ceases to be a government run for and by the people". -- Thomas Jefferson.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens." -- Thomas Jefferson, Note in Destutt de Tracy, 1816

"Let your gun be your companion on all your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

I think People shoud be able to carry concealed everywhere without a permit.

Since when does the right to self defense end when you walk out your front door?

TBJW writes:

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to repel foreign invaders, but to assure the ability to overthrow the government if it ceases to be a government run for and by the people". -- Thomas Jefferson

The other quotes are authentic. This one is not. When the pro-gun rights side has so many authentic comments to choose from, there's really no excuse for making one up.

For example, in his proposed Virginia Constitution,
June 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the arms right:

"No freeman shall [ever] be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"

Cite: Thomas Jefferson'sPapers, J. Boyd, ed., vol.1 p.344 (Putnam, 1896)