Visit http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/ to hear the Second Amendment case that was argued before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday. The decision is expected to be handed down in June.
Go Justice Scalia:
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.
The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SOUTER: Can we also look to current conditions like current crime statistics?
MR. GURA: To some extent, Your Honor, but we have certainly --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in Washington, D.C. using handguns?
MR. GURA: If we were to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun.
_________________________________
Cite: Partial transcript taken from: The Oyez Project, District of Columbia v. Heller, (No. 07-290), available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/
Go Justice Scalia:
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.
The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SOUTER: Can we also look to current conditions like current crime statistics?
MR. GURA: To some extent, Your Honor, but we have certainly --
JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, can they consider the extent of the murder rate in Washington, D.C. using handguns?
MR. GURA: If we were to consider the extent of the murder rate with handguns, the law would not survive any type of review, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun.
_________________________________
Cite: Partial transcript taken from: The Oyez Project, District of Columbia v. Heller, (No. 07-290), available at: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/
Last edited:
