If you’re really interested in the matter, Oyez.com has put up a transcript and recording of the Supreme Court’s hearing last week in the matter of DC vs. Heller. We’ve heard the chattering class go on and on about what was covered and what they’re certain every justices’ comments mean – why not decide for yourself?
I think it’s some interesting stuff, but then I’m an amateur law nerd. A big part of the government’s case here is that they’re not violating the 2nd amendment because while they’re restricting some arms they’re not restricting all arms.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: It doesn’t means all. It doesn’t mean — “keep,” on your reading, at least if it’s consistent with Miller, keep and bear some arms, but not all arms.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just — I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.
Other stuff seems a little off the mark and entirely discussed for the sake of trying to clarify some things, but its interesting just how extreme some logical conclusions can be. Like this bit, where the justices question the representative for the people asserting that they have a right to a handgun, when they discuss whether it matters that the whole shebang starts out by stating that the underlying point is a well-regulated militia.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So a conscientious objector who likes to hunt deer for food, you would say has no rights under the Second Amendment. He is not going to be part of the militia, he is not going to be part of the common defense, but he wants to bear arms.
You would say that he doesn’t have any rights under this amendment?
Interesting stuff, and worth a read and/or listen.
This post appeared in its original form at DC Metblogs