This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
White House Split As Supreme Court Hears Landmark Gun Case
From Reuters:
The U.S. Supreme Court considers on Tuesday a landmark legal battle over gun rights, taking up for the first time in nearly 70 years whether Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. . . .
The case has split the Bush administration.
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, has adopted the position that individuals have a right to own a gun, but it is subject to reasonable government regulation.
Clement, who is arguing before the justices, seeks to preserve all of the current federal restrictions, including a ban on new machine gun sales, a ban on felons owning guns and required background checks for new buyers of handguns.
But Vice President Dick Cheney joined a group of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate members in urging the court to adopt a stronger stand in favour of gun rights.
Your reaction?
All i can say is this....I KNOW my congressman WILL and IS fighting tooth and nail for OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!!!!!!
git 'em Mark!!!!!!
Posted by: Mike | March 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I really think the individual right to keep and bear arms will be upheld.
BUT........the court is more likely than not going to say states have a right impose laws that regulate what guns they will allow because of the public safety.
So really, what will have changed?
Jim
Posted by: | March 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I don't know what kind of sway our pro-gun Congress-people have on SCOTUS! Hopefully someone will provide the "hard data" that the gun ban is futile!
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | March 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The court is suppose to follow precdence set forth previous rulings. If that is the case there should be no changes.
Sam Alito and John Roberts were nominated to change laws however.
With some luck I can have my machine gun by spring!!
Posted by: Jason | March 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Jason
Alito and Roberts were appointed because they WON'T CHANGE! They're both considered "strict constructionists" because they believe that the Constitution should be applied as it was written.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The USSJC has no obligation to follow precedent set by prior rulings. Indeed, it has the authority to declare prior rulings as meritless.
I hope that the USSJC will rule that DCs gun ban and other regulations are unreasonable because of the storage clauses in DCs ban. I also hope that the USSJC will recognize that self-defense is a legitimate concern and that carrying a hunting rifle around on your back isn't really consistent with self-defense, and therefore rule that a wholesale ban on handguns violates the constitution.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | March 18, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Brilliant timing for this debate - in the midst of a POTUS campaign push - our rights are going to be dutifully upheld. No One wants to be the official to rule against our 2nd Amendment, particularly in an election. Let's see what HillBama has to say....This could turn the tide of the Dem Nominations/Delegate push and show us where all of our hopefulls stand. McCain - wait to hear from your opposition before you speak (for Once)...Could give you the upperhand yet again.
Posted by: NH Philosopher | March 18, 2008 at 01:59 PM
NHP
McCain doesn't have to wait on this one. I'm comfortable with his position.
To tell the truth, if HRC or BHO were to come out against the DC gun ban, I wouldn't vote for either of them anyway. Those two are wrestling in the mud of a race war. For either of them, its lose lose.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 18, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Selling machine guns will just make it worse. Felons should not have guns. There should be a background check for new purchasers of guns BUT D***IT LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!!!! WE USE GUNS WISELY!!!.
Nate
Posted by: I'm in school right now | March 18, 2008 at 02:24 PM
I read the analysis of the split in the GOP with respect to the SCOTUS hearing today. I can't say that I understand it. I believe that it has to do with the scope of the decision. Whether or not this ruling should apply to gun laws nationwide or just DC.
From the questions that the Justices aked, and the way they were asked, it sounds pretty good for our side.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 18, 2008 at 06:05 PM
There is nothing more American than the right to bare arms, if hillbama oppose this fact they cannot be fit for office
Posted by: brian | March 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Dick Cheney for President! Or how did McCain weigh in on this one?
SA
Posted by: SilverArrow | March 19, 2008 at 01:06 AM
Don't forget Justice Clarence Thomas. I read an article that contained quotes from him and he is a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the individual's right provided by same.
I wonder when we will receive any info on how the SCOTUS decision is heading.
Posted by: John R | March 19, 2008 at 08:39 AM
John R:
I didn't forget Justice Thomas, I just referred to the Bush appointees. Apparently, we have four solidly in our favor. I cannot, for the life of me, remember who the fourth is. Kennedy is the swing vote, and he's probably on our side. From what I read yesterday, there wasn't a lot of negatives by anyone on the bench. The ruling isn't expected until June.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 19, 2008 at 09:27 AM
McCain has come out and said he believes the 2A is an individual right...We can only hope Billary and Osama come out against the 2nd...between the race war they are engaged in and Anti 2nd stands...that would make Johnny a shoe in!!
Posted by: Mike | March 19, 2008 at 09:49 AM
From the "astounded" tone of the press - it looks like we have nothing to fear re: the protection of our right to bear arms. The SCOTUS, and I'm awash in glee, seems to have wisdom beyond what the liberal media can influence. The individual right to bear arms is a bright and shining star of the American culture and part of our founding father's intent - according to SCOTUS and my family, neighborhood, community and country.
Posted by: NH Philosopher | March 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
NH Philosopher:
I saw it the same way. For all of you out there who regret voting for GWB, this is the payoff. If we had elected either of the other two, we'd be singing a different song right now.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 19, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Yoop,
I agree that Bush was the lesser of two evils and that's why I voted for him as well.
It's just a shame that voting for the lesser of two evils seems to be the rule and not the exception any more.
Jim
Posted by: jstreet | March 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Hang on guys!
They haven't made up their collective minds yet. They don't have to issue their decision until sometime in June!
The previous set to was just to hear arguments. What we heard was them asking questions!
We haven't heard the final outcome yet! Keep hoping and praying!
Bubba
P.S. I like what I heard too! Hopefully, it'll go our way!
Posted by: Bubba | March 19, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Bubba:
Sorry. I'm kind of in a gloomy mood so I needed a cheer up. The reports that I read were really good.
Jim:
No doubt we'll be doing that again in Nov. Much as I respect Senator McCain, he scares me a bit. The other two just waste oxygen.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM
"If we had elected either of the other two, we'd be singing a different song right now."
I really doubt that. Gore at least was pro-2nd Amendment. Hard to know about Kerry.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | March 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Mike:
I don't think so. Gore would've appointed judges that fit the Democrat mold. They would have been proponents of an evolving constitution. They would have looked to European Law prior to deciding.
At best, it would be extremely difficult to find a judge who fits that mold, but is pro 2A.
YooperJack
Posted by: YooperJack | March 19, 2008 at 12:58 PM
"They would have looked to European Law prior to deciding."
As did the court yesterday. I disagree that GOP appointees tend to be protective of the rights of citizens, and I disagree that DNC ones tend to be restrictive of the rights of citizens. It seems to depend alot on the appointee. Scalia after all is a Reagan appointee and his willingness to "reinterpret" the Constitution seems to vary, depending on whom is asking him to do the reinterpretation.
I think Gore would have appointed reasonable justices. I doubt that reactionary right wingers would have liked them however because Gore would not have been likely to appoint a USSCJ who would have been sympathetic to restricting abortion rights.
A *REAL* conservative would never be appointed by either party, because a real conservative would consistently rule broadly in favor of citizens' rights, and neither party really wants that.
Posted by: Mike Diehl | March 19, 2008 at 01:50 PM
I still think that Ross Perot would have been a interesting president.
Posted by: Walt Smith | March 19, 2008 at 08:37 PM
go to www. john mc cain. com and read his post. i like what he had to say.
don
Posted by: don m. | March 20, 2008 at 08:51 PM