« Commas in the Second Amendment | Main | Brady Campaign not satisifed with California »
Chris Cox interviewed re: Heller
Gunvaluesboard has a steps of the Court video interview of Chris Cox of ILA in regards the Heller case.
The Court's next day for announcing decisions is tommorrow, starting at 10 AM EDT. I'll be up early and watching for it, altho I'd agree that the last decision day (Monday unless they add another one) is more likely. This is one every Justice wants to have as nearly perfect as possible, and the drafts of opinions may be moving back and forth, not to mention negotiation: "I'll sign the opinion if you'll take that footnote out, I just don't agree on that point."
13 Comments | Leave a comment
@123
It doesn't say keep OR bear arms.
Am I responding to Trollalia?
If so, I apologise to Mr. Hardy.
What's the chance they'll delay the opinion until their next term? Does anyone know roughly how often they delay decisions like that? Do they delay really big decisions more often?
LIBERTARIANAUT, Heller is a "keep case." The best pro-RKBA lawyers around have made that clear.
As stated in the American Legislative Exchange Council's amicus brief, written by an absolutely pro-2nd Amendment lawyer, "This case involves the right to keep arms in the home. This case does not involve bearing arms outside the home."
The question that the Supreme Court agreed to address was whether the D.C. Code violates the 2nd Amendment right of individuals (who are not in any state-regulated militia) to KEEP usable handguns and firearms in their homes for private use.
The question the Court agreed to address is a KEEP question, for inside the private home, NOT for walking around on the street. THAT would be another question, for another day.
@123
Thanks for the addendum. Makes sense in the proscribed arena of "law".
I don't have much hope for any real change in the statist Gov't positions.
I am more profoundly convinced that only I can protect my rights by exercising them.
Black Robes and Lawyers be damned.
I suggest:
Pitchforks and Torches©®
"I don't have much hope for any real change in the statist Gov't positions."
Posted by: Libertarianaut at June 18, 2008 01:30 PM
With all due respect, I am profoundly pleased that some of us still do...
>>>The question the Court agreed to address is a KEEP question, for inside the private home, NOT for walking around on the street. THAT would be another question, for another day.
Quite so. I think there is a century old case, "Robertson v. Baldwin" (?) in which the Court (in dicta?) stated that the 2A does not guarantee any right to walk around carrying a concealed weapon.
Let's be satisfied with a satisfactory answer to the "keep" question in this case.
"I don't have much hope for any real change in the statist Gov't positions."
Posted by: Libertarianaut at June 18, 2008 01:30 PM
With all due respect, I am profoundly pleased that some of us still do...
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at June 18, 2008 02:33 PM
No disrespectableness detected, please let me know when some of you and your hopes are rewarded with anything substantive. Not like FOPA or sunsetting or that canard, reciprocity. I want to see before I die, any man, woman or responsible child walking down the streets of NYC or DC or anywhere with the firearm/weapon of their choice, unmolested by Gov't thugs or hoplophobes. There _is_ still hope, but I don't see it where you may see it.
This was swell and thanks to our host for not censoring me. I am not a lawyer. I _LIVE_ the Non Aggression Pact and Doing The Right Thing. These two concepts are anathema to the powers that be, but not to us here. You have proved that by being nice to me. Thank you.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Diligentia Vis Celeritas
CARL, good memory. The case you mention was cited by the D.C. Circuit Court judge (Silberman) who wrote the opinion in Parker, which is the underlying case in Heller:
"Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government, see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right 'shall not be infringed.'"
Here's a link for Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), explaining the case:
I am afraid that if the decision rules in Heller's favor, it will so narrow as to substantially change not much or be encumbered with so many caveats as to be worthless to any free man wishing to live inside the law.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I still remember Kelo.
I'll be waiting for the ruling too, thanks for linking to the interview, it is an interesting and important case so I'll probably talk about it much more
It's an old interview, from the day of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Cox had one minor slipup at the end of the interview: He mentioned something about people not taking evening strolls around the Supreme Court building because it's not safe. Such an issue has nothing to do with the Heller case. Heller is strictly a "keep case" and it's a "keep case" INSIDE THE HOME. Heller has nothing to do with bearing a firearm on a public street. Heller deals only with the issue of whether a law-abiding private citizen has the right to KEEP inside his own home a working firearm.
All the plaintiff in Heller asked was that he have a legal right to KEEP a working firearm in his own home. The Heller case has nothing to do with whether someone might carry a sidearm on the street for self-protection.