District of Columbia v. Heller: A Photo Essay
Today, barring some unforeseen development, the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the D.C. gun control case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller is truly a blockbuster case, and the ruling -- the Court's first major pronouncement on the Second Amendment in 68 years (or arguably ever) -- is one of the most eagerly anticipated of the entire Term.
When Heller was argued back in March, numerous people camped out overnight to secure seats in the courtroom for the historic proceedings. As you may recall, we took an ATL Field Trip to visit them (see here and here). We now revisit that day, in advance of the opinion hand-down later this morning, and pass along some photos we took of the Heller campers (and neglected to share before).
The mood among the crowd in front of One First Street was festive. The group included law students and recent alumni from Harvard, Duke, Georgetown, and GW law schools. The first seven people in line had camped out the night before our visit, meaning that they wound up sleeping in front of the Court for two consecutive nights to snag their coveted seats. There were also numerous members of the media present (e.g., a Swiss TV crew).
We took an informal survey of the first 20 campers, to find out their views on the case. Fifteen of the 20 supported Heller and an individual right to bear arms (although their views differed somewhat on what might constitute reasonable regulation). Four were in favor of the D.C. gun ban in its current form. One described himself as a "swing vote," a la Justice Kennedy.
We also took some photographs. The picture appearing at the top of this post is of Richard Hohensee, previously introduced to ATL readers here. You can see the rest of the pics, which together constitute a photo essay of sorts about the Heller case, by clicking here (or on the Picasa web album link below).
Photo Album: District of Columbia v. Heller [Picasa]
(22) Comments
You need to try to start getting more regular, weekly columns so you're not forced to have lame posts like this.
I don't understand that guy's sign.
I don't understand that guy's sign.
That guy in the picture once wrote a Note for the Harvard Law Review about corporate and biglaw greed.
It's out...Scalia wrote the opinion...DC residents can now protect themselves against the criminals that have had guns all along...
D.C. is a TTT!
Since when do the homeless care about constitutional rights?
5:4 in favor of an individual right.
Molon labe, bitches.
Whoa... hold on... so the second amendment means what it says? I'm confused.
...
Oh shit... I just had a dream that I was Sarah Brady and that somehow statistically insignificant tragedies justified overruling the Constitution.
ANy clue at what time this news will drop?
10:34 - It's already out. 5:4 in favor of an individual right. Opinion here:
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
ATL needs something akin to a Drudge siren for things like this. Maybe marching gavels, styled like the marching hammers from The Wall.
Anyway, there's a part of me that thinks the decision is less monumental than people are treating it as. A city/state can't ban handguns outright. But it *can* still regulate the hell out of them. Yes, if it went the other way it would have been huge. But not this way.
The dark brunette in the middle from Georgetown law is a hottie ;-)
The dark brunette in the middle from Georgetown law is a hottie ;-)
I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
But seeing as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
5:4. Interesting. Nice to know that when it comes to women's freedoms, 5 out of 4 (all male) don't see why women need those rights, but when it comes to the right to bear arms (the owners of most of which are men) those same 5 to 4 suddenly care about freedom and all.
4:15... and where are the freedoms your talking about (abortion) specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Oh, so you didn't really have a point did you?
4:26, ever read the 9th Amendment? It's a pretty spiffy one.
5:49 ... yeah, it's awesome... when was the last time it was specifically invoked to find a right? Thanks for playing.
7:01, what's being specifically invoked got to do with it? Constitutional rights only apply if the Supreme Court Warlocks say the Magic Words in the right combination?
Late to the party, I know, but I think 5:49 is reading a different Ninth Amendment than the one we have on my planet.
Ours just says, "If it ain't in here, that doesn't mean you *don't* have it." I.E., if it's granted specifically, it exists and can't be undone by statute, if it's not, assume it's okay unless some permissible statute undoes it.
There ain't nothin' in there about abortions, assuming that's the one you're taking about. So they'd be okay unless a permissible law said they weren't.
I should add that being a man, I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I would also say that there is clearly no power for the Federal government to *ban* abortions, since that's not even within hailing distance of any power granted it, and the *Tenth* Amendment on my planet clearly states that if the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can do something, they are specifically forbidden to do it.