Oral Arguments Audio of DC vs Heller

[SC1903A3]

Here's the C-SPAN audio of DC vs Heller argument before SCOTUS.

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm. ... TV&Code=CS

[SJRTX]

IMO, Gura did us no favors. Certainly not in the area of full auto weapons. Even the Solicitor General commented that those were protected under the 2nd. I can understand the strategy of Gura trying to keep the scope of the case limited to the ban of handguns, but when asked directly he said they were not protected. Also Gura supported licensing to own a handgun, licensing that may include a vision test, and proficiency test. Wait a minute now....if you are arguing that this is an individual right, how, in the same breath can you argue that the govt may determine who can exercise that right based on some "standards".

Sorry, but if this falls in our favor, it wont be Gura's doing. It'll be because the justices already had their minds made up before the case even hit their desks. Gura just got it there.

[Charles L. Cotton]

IMO, Gura did us no favors. Certainly not in the area of full auto weapons. Even the Solicitor General commented that those were protected under the 2nd. I can understand the strategy of Gura trying to keep the scope of the case limited to the ban of handguns, but when asked directly he said they were not protected. Also Gura supported licensing to own a handgun, licensing that may include a vision test, and proficiency test. Wait a minute now....if you are arguing that this is an individual right, how, in the same breath can you argue that the govt may determine who can exercise that right based on some "standards".

Sorry, but if this falls in our favor, it wont be Gura's doing. It'll be because the justices already had their minds made up before the case even hit their desks. Gura just got it there.

Amazing, isn't it?
Chas.

[Skiprr]

The link is to Obama's presentation today. Not the SCOTUS arguments.

[thejtrain]

The link is to Obama's presentation today. Not the SCOTUS arguments.

Try this one, then choose either the Flash or Windows Media version. SCOTUSBlog linked to [url=rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm]this[/url], but Firefox doesn't know what to do with it - probably because it's a RealMedia file and I refuse to install their plugin.

As for the results, I agree with most that Gura obviously wasn't at his best, but fortunately neither was Dellinger for DC. It did seem like the justices were having fun trying to pin each one down to making admissions neither one wanted to make. Most of the commentary I've read is saying that it was apparent that the voluminous number of briefs informed each justice's opinion so well already that the oral argument was just a formality. It seems to be a consensus that they'll definitely rule for an individual right apart from militia service, most likely uphold the circuit court's decision that the trigger lock/functional firearm ban is unconstitutional, and probably uphold the circuit court's decision that the handgun ban is unconstitutional (but that last one, aside from the Chief's repeated questions regarding the reasonableness of a ban on a whole class of firearm, is getting the most "not sure where they'll end up on that").

It's completely up in the air as to whether they'll address what standard of review to use in future firearm cases (pro-freedom side wanted strict scrutiny just like 1A enjoys, anti-freedom side wanted "whatever the legislature wants", but the USSG said, "nah, use something in between, which I detailed in my brief"). It seemed like the Chief was opposed to defining a new level of scrutiny ahead of time, making reference to the fact that the standards of review routinely used have grown up over time as a result of case law rather than codified ahead of time in a specific decision.

JT

[Skiprr]

Try this one, then choose either the Flash or Windows Media version.

Perfecto. Listening now.

Thanks.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to guess what the Supremes are going to do on this or any case. Everyone in the legal community was absolutely convinced that the Campaign Finance Reform Act was going to be struck down and it wasn't. With the mix of justices we have, deals are going to be made and there is no way to predict the outcome. It's also very possible to have a plurality of opinions; i.e. 5 justices agreeing on the outcome, but disagreeing on the reasons therefore and joining various concurring opinions.

Take everything you read with a grain of salt; whether it's on our side or not.

Chas.

[thejtrain]

The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to guess what the Supremes are going to do on this or any case. Everyone in the legal community was absolutely convinced that the Campaign Finance Reform Act was going to be struck down and it wasn't. With the mix of justices we have, deals are going to be made and there is no way to predict the outcome. It's also very possible to have a plurality of opinions; i.e. 5 justices agreeing on the outcome, but disagreeing on the reasons therefore and joining various concurring opinions.

Take everything you read with a grain of salt; whether it's on our side or not.

Very, VERY good point. I forgot that this is by-and-large the same group of black-robed fuddy-duddies who gave us Raich and Kelo. Worse yet, the two justices who had been replaced since those two rulings both dissented to both of those two rulings. So in that regard the makeup of SCOTUS hasn't materially changed.

JT

[frankie_the_yankee]

IMO, Gura did us no favors. Certainly not in the area of full auto weapons. Even the Solicitor General commented that those were protected under the 2nd. I can understand the strategy of Gura trying to keep the scope of the case limited to the ban of handguns, but when asked directly he said they were not protected. Also Gura supported licensing to own a handgun, licensing that may include a vision test, and proficiency test. Wait a minute now....if you are arguing that this is an individual right, how, in the same breath can you argue that the govt may determine who can exercise that right based on some "standards".

Sorry, but if this falls in our favor, it wont be Gura's doing. It'll be because the justices already had their minds made up before the case even hit their desks. Gura just got it there.

when the Solicitor General said that an individual rights ruling would mean that the machine gun ban would soon be overturned, he was doing it in an effort to make The Court rule AGAINST an individual rights interpretation. In other words, he was using it as a scare tactic.

It would be as if I was presenting an argument to The Court and said something like, "I believe that the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to an absolute individual right with no infringements or restrictions allowed. So if you rule in favor of this position, the happy day will soon arrive when Pantex can set up a vending machine for nuclear bombs in front of the UN building in Manhattan, and our God-given right to keep and bear arms will get its fullest possible expression."

When Gura was saying that yes, maybe machines could be banned under strict scrutiny, he was doing it to try to assure winning the case for the individual rights position. By telling the justices that he did not think that the individual rights position automatically meant that machine guns couldn't be banned, he was simply responding to the "bogeyman" that Delliger, Clements, ect. were trying to put before The Court - the idea that widespread mayhem would ensue under an individual rights ruling as people "armed up" with machine guns.

Gura did very well. We are going to get a good ruling out of this. And any comments about machine guns will be nothing more than dicta, and not legally binding on some future case.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The only thing that is certain is that it is impossible to guess what the Supremes are going to do on this or any case. Everyone in the legal community was absolutely convinced that the Campaign Finance Reform Act was going to be struck down and it wasn't. With the mix of justices we have, deals are going to be made and there is no way to predict the outcome. It's also very possible to have a plurality of opinions; i.e. 5 justices agreeing on the outcome, but disagreeing on the reasons therefore and joining various concurring opinions.

Take everything you read with a grain of salt; whether it's on our side or not.

Chas.

Remember, the McCain-Feingold ruling came down 5-4 with the help of the addled-brained O'Connor.

Her grasp of constitutional law was similar to my grasp of ancient Persian poetry.

Remember how she (again as the swing vote) mucked up the Michigan affirmative action case a while back? Apparently, she "discovered" some new constitutional principle, or a hitherto unknown section of our civil rights laws that said that someday we would have to move to a color-blind society, but not for another 25 years?

None of the current sitting justices are as flighty as she was. So it's a little bit easier to predict what they will do.

[SJRTX]

I disagree. Gura did not do a fine job. He came off as a rookie that was in over his head. At points he seemed to be getting pushed around. He wasnt staying on point very well, and his argument seemed to be all over the place. But I am no lawyer, so I cant critique a lawyer's arguments from my own experience.

But I'll paste a post from another gun board:

I'm an attorney. I've argued cases before CA Supreme Court and three District Courts of Appeals.
IMHO Gura did a bad job, plain and simple.

First, he was somewhat hard to understand, talked too fast, and didn't make the key points for his case.

As a lawyer friend of mine (who was AT the oral argument today) said, "Gura was young and inexperienced. He failed miserably at staying on point and "bit" on all the red herring questions posed by the liberal justices. He wasted 2/3 of his argument time."

My friend agreed that the most compelling argument in this case was NEVER enunciated by Gura.

"Everyday Mr. Heller goes to work as a Federal Security Guard. He is issued a gun to protect the lives of federal workers... like yourselves your honors. Yet when he goes home he's told he doesn't have the right to protect his own life."

I think this guy sums it up well.

[KBCraig]

Remember, the McCain-Feingold ruling came down 5-4 with the help of the addled-brained O'Connor.

Her grasp of constitutional law was similar to my grasp of ancient Persian poetry.

She only had six years' experience as a state judge, and no federal background at all. It's no wonder her positions are usually described as "difficult to define".

My biggest gripe with her is that she was an outspoken advocate of citing foreign laws and court rulings while deciding U.S. cases.

My best guess is that the ruling will be 5-4, maybe 6-3 if Ginsberg joins. If she does, I expect her to write a separate opinion disagreeing in part. I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy does the same.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Gura did very well.

No he did not; not by any stretch of the imagination.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

None of the current sitting justices are as flighty as she was. So it's a little bit easier to predict what they will do.

No it's not.

Chas.

[KD5NRH]

Gura did very well.

No he did not; not by any stretch of the imagination.

Between the parts of the audio and the transcript that I've gotten through so far, it really didn't seem like Dellinger was doing much better for his side. I was just waiting for them to get to something like "Prima Donna" from Phantom of the Opera, with all the parts going in three or four different directions at the same time.