Actual questions:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: -- short of that, just to get your position clear, short of reactivating State militias, on your reading does the Second Amendment have any effect today as a restraint on legislation? P.10
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But wasn't there a leeway for some weapon prohibition? Let me ask you, in relation to the States that do have guarantees of the right to possess a weapon at home: Do some of those States say there are certain kinds of guns that you can't have, like machine guns? P. 20
JUSTICE GINSBURG: If we're going back to the English Bill of Rights, it was always understood to be subject to the control and limitation and restriction of Parliament. And I don't think there's any doubt about that. And that's what we're talking about here, are legislative restrictions. P.34
JUSTICE GINSBURG: There is a lot of talk about standards and stop words like strict scrutiny. Does it make a practical difference whether we take your standard or the strict scrutiny that was in the D.C. Circuit's opinion? And specifically there is a whole panoply of Federal laws restricting gun possession. Would any of them be jeopardized under your standard? And the same question with the District scrutiny, does it make any difference?
P. 43
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is it a limitation? Is it any limitation on the legislature? Is the first clause any limitation on the legislature? P.54
JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you were thinking of "the people," what those words meant when the Second Amendment was adopted, it was males between the ages of what -- 17 and 45? People who were over 45 had no -they didn't serve in the militia. P. 55-56
JUSTICE GINSBURG: But why wouldn't the machine gun qualify? General Clement told us that's standard issue in the military. P.60
JUSTICE GINSBURG: At this time -- I would just like to follow up on what you said, because if you were right that it was at that time, yes; but that's not what Miller says. It says that the gun in question there was not one that at this time -- this time, the time of the Miller decision -- has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. So it's talking about this time. P.60
JUSTICE GINSBURG: If it's a fundamental right, what about licensing? One piece -- we've talked about trigger locks, we've talked about the ban on handguns, but there is also a requirement that there be a license for possession of a handgun. Assuming you're right on the first question, that you couldn't flatly ban handguns, what about a requirement that you obtain a license to carry -- to have a handgun? P.74
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about this very law? If you take out the ban -- there is a law on the books. It's one of the ones that you challenged. It's section 22-4504(a). Wouldn't that be okay -- would that be okay? It says that you have to have a license to carry. P. 74
JUSTICE GINSBURG: It just says -- it says you have to get a license if you want to possess a gun. What kind of standard? It just says you have to have a license. P.75
Links from Anthony:
Also, here is the website for the complet oral argument: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Here is the wikipedia for Justice Ginsburg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Kat's stuff
Justice Ginsburg. More vociferously, Justice Ginsburg, before the American Society of International Law in Washington, D.C., stated that "[t]he notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." "Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court Considers Foreign Law, Not Just Constitution" (NewsMax.Com: Apr. 3, 2005) http://www.newsmax.com/archives
Justice Ginsburg will basically accept D.C.'s position: the Second Amendment may confer an individual right to arms, but it is not a right that can be asserted outside of the context of participation in a state-regulated military organization.
http://www.concurringopinions
Possible Ginsburg Questions (Jade):
If the Second Amendment were found to protect an individual right to bear arms, how far would this jeopardize current reasonable restrictions across the country?
If the D.C. law on handguns is found to be unconstitutional, could this open the door for unrestricted ownership of other more dangerous military weapons, such as machine guns?
If the ban were taken out of the D.C. gun control laws, surely the other restrictions, such as licenses and trigger-locks would be considered reasonable? If not, why not?
Needing to have a license for a gun permits ownership, but allows for some responsible method of tracking this. Where is the problem with licensing?
2) If the argument for the second amendment is being argued on the basis of self protection rather than for the use of militias, shouldn't we than consider the fact that it is far more likely that you or someone you love will be injured or killed by your own gun than the likely hood that you would have to use a handgun in order to protect yourself?
Katie's Questions
Questions for the Plaintiff (D.C.; represented by Mr. Dellinger)
1.) (If strict scrutiny is brought up) Does it make any difference whether we take your standard or the strict scrutiny that was in the D.C. Circuit's opinion? Additionally, there are many federal laws that address and restrict gun possession. Would any of them have to be changed under your standard?
2.) I know that guns don't walk around and kill people by themselves, but do you believe that easy access to guns makes killing physically easier? Makes it too convenient, especially when angered?
3.) It's obvious that someone who's willing to do a major crime like murder, isn't likely to worry about a gun control law. However, do you believe that gun restrictions make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people?
Questions for the Defendant (Heller, represented by Mr. Gura)
1.) Do you feel that the right to "keep arms" includes all types of arms? Does it include handguns?
2.) If the D.C. hang gun ban is found unconstitutional, how would you feel about licensing requirements? Are licensing requirements constitutional? If licensing is permissible, how do you feel about conducting background checks on individuals registering for gun licenses?
3.) D.C. has a tremendous crime rate. Why is it reasonable for civilians to carry hand guns? Even the First Amendment has restrictions. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere. Can't some common sense be used when interpreting the 2nd Amendment too?
Kat's questions:
