Today's the day.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

The Supreme Court will hear the Heller v. District of Columbia gun law case today. Haven't heard much media coverage regarding it. Perhaps it's just because I refuse to watch television news.

For you legal geeks, here's an interesting piece from a professor at Georgetown Law.

[[AK]Clay]

I stayed up to 1:30 AM listening to the court aurguments last night. (I'm a dweeb, what can I say ) Fascinating. I never thought I'd hear the Supreme Court saying some of the things I was hearing. Lots of very pointed questions. The most profound statement to me was from a justice who said "I think the Miller case is deficient" (The Miller case is a 1930's Supreme Court ruling that has been used to uphold much of the gun control in America - there were quite a few irregularities and questionable statements made in that case which were used as the basis for the decision. And neither Miller nor his lawyer ever showed up in court to aurgue their defense).

The modern Supreme Court is infamous for taking high profile cases that could have a big impact, and coming out with a 200 page opinion that's confusing and does not actually change anything. That could well be the result of this case. Nonetheless, from what I was hearing, the supreme court didn't sound too convinced that the DC pistol ban (for one) or that much of the gun control in America (for two) is consistent with the text and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Not making any predictions yet, but this could get very interesting.



As to my own commentary - the Second Amendment is clear. Aurguements about "The People" somehow being for the National Guard or some other government entity are weak - such smells a lot like justifcation of a pre-existing bias. Hand waving explanations that magically make part of the Bill of Rights go away scare the Hell out of me.

I have a lot more respect for someone who disagrees with the concept of the Second Amendment or says it's outdated, but is honest enough to try and change the actual text of the constitution than to just pretend it's not there.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

I listened to many of the arguments and questions as well and was also amazed at the questions being asked by the justices... and the hollow answers.

From what I heard, I'm thinking that the Second Amendment is going to be safer for generations and the upcoming ruling will be the most important step in decades toward ensuring gun rights for individual citizens.

(Sidebar: I was listening to the arguments on NPR, considered by many to be nothing but an elitist liberal mouthpiece, but I found the coverage to be remarkable. Additionally, I can't think of another "mainstream" media source that would broadcast the actual courtroom dialog.)

[[AK]Squidly]

(Sidebar: I was listening to the arguments on NPR, considered by many to be nothing but an elitist liberal mouthpiece, but I found the coverage to be remarkable. Additionally, I can't think of another "mainstream" media source that would broadcast the actual courtroom dialog.)

When liberal mouthpieces shut up and let the news report itself, it can be quite compelling.

[[AK]Sonic Boom]

When liberal mouthpieces shut up and let the news report itself, it can be quite compelling.

Indeed. I'd like to see FOX try it someday.