A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts
Today's arguments of Heller v. District of Columbia, pdf file.
amazing.
ReplyDeleteJustice Scalia - "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."
Tyrants destroy militias by taking their weapons. We can't let that happen. Thanks Xavier, I don't know how you found that but I'm glad it's there for us to keep an eye on.
-Dan
Thanks for the link to the PDF, Xavier. As a law school student about to begin a competition in appellate oral arguments, reading the report was fascinating but frightening at the same time - I would hate to be representing anyone in front of the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope the court gets this one right.
You can also hear an audio recording of the arguments at http://www.c-span.org/. It lasts over an hour and a half and gives a better flavor of what happened than the transcript.
ReplyDeleteA New York Times article says the court is likely to affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms. Don't hold your breath though. Their ruling is not expected until June I believe.
I think Police Chief Lanier summed up the District's definition of "reasonable" quite nicely.
ReplyDeleteQuick question. Who provided guns to the militia? If citizens provided their own guns when they joined the militia... wait a minute. I thought citizens weren't allowed to have guns?
ReplyDeleteIt's insanity to even be debating this. It's common sense regarding the right to bear arms, but some would rather aspire to lunacy.
ReplyDelete