03-20-2008, 08:10 PM
Oral arguments concluded yesterday in the United States Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller-a case to determine authoritatively whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right to keep and bear arms.
In yesterday's arguments, the Justices questioned Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging the District's law. Of particular note were questions very early on from Justice Anthony Kennedy, long considered to be the High Court's "swing" (5th) vote. While it is near impossible to judge the outcome of a case or where a particular Justice stands from oral arguments alone, Justice Kennedy's questions seem to indicate that he believes the amendment provides an "individual right." He asked whether settlers on the frontier had a right to have a gun. The posing of this question also indicates that Justice Kennedy read the NSSF amicus brief-the only brief to raise this issue.<br />
Also discussed during yesterday's arguments was whether the D.C.'s ban on handguns and requirement that all long-guns be locked and rendered non-functional amounted to a ban on self-defense, a seemingly rhetorical argument to Chief Justice Roberts who made clear his view that current law resulted in just such a prohibition.<br />
"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.<br />
"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, then the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."<br />
A decision by the High Court is expected to be issued by late June.
In yesterday's arguments, the Justices questioned Walter Dellinger for the District, Solicitor General Paul Clement for the Department of Justice, and Alan Gura for the plaintiffs challenging the District's law. Of particular note were questions very early on from Justice Anthony Kennedy, long considered to be the High Court's "swing" (5th) vote. While it is near impossible to judge the outcome of a case or where a particular Justice stands from oral arguments alone, Justice Kennedy's questions seem to indicate that he believes the amendment provides an "individual right." He asked whether settlers on the frontier had a right to have a gun. The posing of this question also indicates that Justice Kennedy read the NSSF amicus brief-the only brief to raise this issue.<br />
Also discussed during yesterday's arguments was whether the D.C.'s ban on handguns and requirement that all long-guns be locked and rendered non-functional amounted to a ban on self-defense, a seemingly rhetorical argument to Chief Justice Roberts who made clear his view that current law resulted in just such a prohibition.<br />
"The firearms industry looks forward to the Supreme Court putting to rest the specious argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "This intellectually bankrupt and feeble argument has been used by gun control advocates to justify laws and regulations that deny Americans their civil right to own and lawfully use firearms for protection, hunting, sports shooting and other lawful purposes.<br />
"The firearms and ammunition industry is unique in that our products are the means through which the Second Amendment right is realized," continued Keane. "If there were no firearms and ammunition manufacturers, then the Second Amendment becomes an illusory right."<br />
A decision by the High Court is expected to be issued by late June.