Seven Days and Counting "Firearms"
Seven days from today, both sides of the firearms argument will get together for what will be, in essence, a cage match a near winner-take-all scenario. When the nine Supreme Court justices gavel Tuesday's session to commence, all the talking, posturing and tit-for-tat Amicus Curae filings will be on the line. The trial in the court of public opinion will be over. We'll be talking about nine jurists deciding if the Second Amendment is valid or invalidated for individual firearms owners.
The amount of media interest building to this case is, putting it mildly, huge. Over the weekend, media acquaintances from the past have reconnected, with a single question: "are you going to be in the District next week?"
It's not often the Supreme Court becomes the hot ticket in Washington, but for oral arguments next Tuesday, the bright spotlight will shine on the one place in Washington where quiet conduct is not only expected, it's required. Here, there are no electronic devices permitted. Not just forbidden for use - they're not allowed in the courtroom. All electronic devices, including the Bluetooth earpiece and ubiquitous cellphone will be pried from the fingers of people who find them irreplaceable. In fact, court rules say pencil-and-paper for note taking. Not pen and paper - pencil. We're talking old school.
While the journalists are not being permitted to use electronic devices to record - or retransmit - the proceedings, the Supreme Court has recognized the unprecedented attention that's being given this case nationally. In response, they're going to make "quick audio" available to the media. No word yet on what constitutes "quick" in the eyes of the court, but it's recognition that there are many more people looking for admission than there are spaces for accommodation. The general public areas may be the last refuge of some, but those seats are first-come, first-serve and the media can't "ootz" themselves to the front of the line.
At this point, it's like the hyperbole building to the Super Bowl, with one exception. None of the players are talking - at least not the ones whose calls will count. Across the country, both sides were logging last-minute media time, letting their constituencies know they're not giving up, whatever the verdict.
Alan Gura, widely regarded as the "mastermind" of this built-for-the-Supreme Court-case, put in time on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio broadcast this weekend, and many of the 47 amici who have filed briefs in favor of the pro-individual interpretation spent time with their constituencies as well.
Unfortunately - for the individual interpretation advocates - the Solicitor General's amicus filing is normally regarded as the official administration position and that of the federal government. In this instance, S-G Paul D. Clement has tried to have it both ways. In his initial remarks, he flatly states the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Later, he says that it's still reasonable to have regulations that state what's a "reasonable firearm" for an individual to own. Of course, he has a significant amount of skin in the game - a complete tossing of the D.C. ban would set the stage for an eventual challenge to every gun ban in the country.
Of course, there's absolutely no reason to believe Clement is speaking for the administration in this instance. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as President of the Senate, signed a congressional amicus that supports the Heller/individual interpretation.
IN addition, the Goldwater Institute has stepped into the amicus filings, countering Heller's argument with their own 31-page rebuttal. On a state level, only five states have filed in favor of the District of Columbia position - thirty one others have filed a brief excoriating it.
Does it divide constituencies? Absolutely. In fact, the American Jewish Committee and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are at complete odds in their amicus filings.
It's looking like the stage is being set for a showdown where all parties are sounding confident, but realize their confidence won't mean a thing if the justices decide otherwise.
We'll keep you posted.
Seven days from today, both sides of the firearms argument will get together for what will be, in essence, a cage match a near winner-take-all scenario. When the nine Supreme Court justices gavel Tuesday's session to commence, all the talking, posturing and tit-for-tat Amicus Curae filings will be on the line. The trial in the court of public opinion will be over. We'll be talking about nine jurists deciding if the Second Amendment is valid or invalidated for individual firearms owners.
The amount of media interest building to this case is, putting it mildly, huge. Over the weekend, media acquaintances from the past have reconnected, with a single question: "are you going to be in the District next week?"
It's not often the Supreme Court becomes the hot ticket in Washington, but for oral arguments next Tuesday, the bright spotlight will shine on the one place in Washington where quiet conduct is not only expected, it's required. Here, there are no electronic devices permitted. Not just forbidden for use - they're not allowed in the courtroom. All electronic devices, including the Bluetooth earpiece and ubiquitous cellphone will be pried from the fingers of people who find them irreplaceable. In fact, court rules say pencil-and-paper for note taking. Not pen and paper - pencil. We're talking old school.
While the journalists are not being permitted to use electronic devices to record - or retransmit - the proceedings, the Supreme Court has recognized the unprecedented attention that's being given this case nationally. In response, they're going to make "quick audio" available to the media. No word yet on what constitutes "quick" in the eyes of the court, but it's recognition that there are many more people looking for admission than there are spaces for accommodation. The general public areas may be the last refuge of some, but those seats are first-come, first-serve and the media can't "ootz" themselves to the front of the line.
At this point, it's like the hyperbole building to the Super Bowl, with one exception. None of the players are talking - at least not the ones whose calls will count. Across the country, both sides were logging last-minute media time, letting their constituencies know they're not giving up, whatever the verdict.
Alan Gura, widely regarded as the "mastermind" of this built-for-the-Supreme Court-case, put in time on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio broadcast this weekend, and many of the 47 amici who have filed briefs in favor of the pro-individual interpretation spent time with their constituencies as well.
Unfortunately - for the individual interpretation advocates - the Solicitor General's amicus filing is normally regarded as the official administration position and that of the federal government. In this instance, S-G Paul D. Clement has tried to have it both ways. In his initial remarks, he flatly states the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Later, he says that it's still reasonable to have regulations that state what's a "reasonable firearm" for an individual to own. Of course, he has a significant amount of skin in the game - a complete tossing of the D.C. ban would set the stage for an eventual challenge to every gun ban in the country.
Of course, there's absolutely no reason to believe Clement is speaking for the administration in this instance. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as President of the Senate, signed a congressional amicus that supports the Heller/individual interpretation.
IN addition, the Goldwater Institute has stepped into the amicus filings, countering Heller's argument with their own 31-page rebuttal. On a state level, only five states have filed in favor of the District of Columbia position - thirty one others have filed a brief excoriating it.
Does it divide constituencies? Absolutely. In fact, the American Jewish Committee and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are at complete odds in their amicus filings.
It's looking like the stage is being set for a showdown where all parties are sounding confident, but realize their confidence won't mean a thing if the justices decide otherwise.
We'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd











