USSC HEARS THE VOICE OF FREEDOM OF SELF DEFENSE

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WON IN TODAY'S SUPREME COURT HEARING, SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA - Today's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court
in the case of District of Columbia v Heller produced a clear victory for
the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

"We are confident," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, "that the high court
will hand down an opinion that affirms the Second Amendment means
what it says. Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear
that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of
District resident Dick Anthony Heller. We were impressed with the depth
of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the
court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history,
and that ?'the people' are all citizens.

"We believe the District presented a very weak defense of its handgun ban
that is not supported by court precedent or historical fact," he continued.
"Attorney Alan Gura, and Solicitor General Paul Clement, however,
both provided a clear and proper perspective on the meaning of the
Second Amendment. Mr. Gura's remarks left the justices with a clear
understanding why the District's handgun ban is unconstitutional."

Gottlieb believes that Gura, one of three attorneys representing District resident
Dick Anthony Heller, who is challenging the 32-year-old handgun ban, "won the oral argument."

"While we do not expect the Supreme Court to strike down every gun law
and regulation on the books," Gottlieb said, "we anticipate that the court
will rule once and for all that the right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental individual civil right, and that gun bans, even on specific
types of commonly-owned firearms, do not stand up under even modest scrutiny.

"An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,"
he concluded, "will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian
firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy
a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun
control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment
only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia.
That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today,
and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist
gun banners try to make it so." [ emphasis added by David ]




Mr. Gottlieb told me that it looks good for a 6 to 3 or a 7 to 2 vote
in favor of personal freedom of self defense,
based upon the Justices' questions to counsel.

We expect the ANTI-Freedom side to be led by Stevens,
supported by Breyer; Souter can go either way.

In theory, this ruling cannot extend so far as to limit the powers
of the States, because no state law is before the court;
HOWEVER, in GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) 372 US 335
the US Supreme Court held that:
" this Court has looked to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of original Bill of Rights
guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes
them obligatory on the States. " [ emphasis added by David ]

In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5)
the Supreme Court held that:
"All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected
by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states " [ emphasis added by David ]
therefore,
if the USSC holds that the right to keep and bear arms
is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, then it might be deemed to extend immunity
from gun control laws to each citizen and to every citizen anywhere and everywhere in America.
David