March 2nd has Arrived - Links to What is happening at SCOTUS

[golocx4]

There are Twitters - Blogs - Videos etc
Anyone find anything?
Here is what I have so far.
UPDATE FROM SCOTUS
About 100 people waited overnight for tickets in bitter cold.

Twitter Link
Other Links
http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nin...ss-report.html
and
FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST

[nogods]

this one too:

Josh Blackman's Blog

and transcript of the oral argument should be available tomorrow here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...anscripts.html

[golocx4]

JOsh's first tweet is scary

omg. Gura got bammed. No way p or I gets votes.

[nogods]

From the early reports it sounds like the 2nd is going to get incorporated but with open ended restriction language like that used in the Heller opinion.

So total bans will be unconstitutional. Will restrictions limiting possession to one's home be allowed? Will bans of firearms on public property be allowed? It is going to take a lot more cases to sort out the details.

[golocx4]

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.
If the Court was not receptive to the “privileges or immunities”, then can we assume that the Justices believe that the RTKBA is already a "certain unalienable right," and therefore does not need to be argued? In other words, the 14th Amendment recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms for defense of person and property was an essential liberty inherent in all free citizens.
Or, is the court saying that the privileges or immunities clause for federal-state relations remains as defined by the Slaughterhouse Cases – where the court virtually erased the privileges or immunities clause.

So now, they will concentrate on due process. They will have to decide that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, through "incorporation," as it is called.
So they will guarantee that individuals have the ability to challenge states when they violate freedom of speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and other Constitutional rights.
Are we better off, with a decision that the Second Amendment is incorporated? Thus limiting the states through the due process clause, or will it change nothing? Leaving the question open to interpretation by lower courts.

[nogods]

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I hope I am.
If the Court was not receptive to the “privileges or immunities”, then can we assume that the Justices believe that the RTKBA is already a "certain unalienable right," and therefore does not need to be argued? In other words, the 14th Amendment recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms for defense of person and property was an essential liberty inherent in all free citizens.
Or, is the court saying that the privileges or immunities clause for federal-state relations remains as defined by the Slaughterhouse Cases – where the court virtually erased the privileges or immunities clause.

So now, they will concentrate on due process. They will have to decide that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, through "incorporation," as it is called.
So they will guarantee that individuals have the ability to challenge states when they violate freedom of speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and other Constitutional rights.
Are we better off, with a decision that the Second Amendment is incorporated? Thus limiting the states through the due process clause, or will it change nothing? Leaving the question open to interpretation by lower courts.

I think the court is going to hold that the 2nd applies to the states only because of incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th.

Absent that holding, earlier cases would still rule and the 2nd would only apply to the Federal government, leaving states the ability to enact total gun bans.

[CapGun]

I think the court is going to hold that the 2nd applies to the states only because of incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th.

Absent that holding, earlier cases would still rule and the 2nd would only apply to the Federal government, leaving states the ability to enact total gun bans.

Would the be a converse to that is as much that individual states could allow firearms or their (state) choice to anyone with out any federal check?

[nogods]

Would the be a converse to that is as much that individual states could allow firearms or their (state) choice to anyone with out any federal check?

probably not - the commerce clause gives the feds almost unlimited jurisdiction when it comes to any type of commercial activity.

[Wolfling68]

probably not - the commerce clause gives the feds almost unlimited jurisdiction when it comes to any type of commercial activity.

That's not entirely true. The Constitution states the Fed has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not intra state. There has not been a test case for a purely intra state item, AFAK. The only recent case I am aware of was for marajuana, where the court ruled the pot in one state is not substantially different from the pot in another to make it intra state. By stamping manufactured and for use in Montana (for example) only should make it beyond the reach of the Feds.
However, they might say since the raw materials are manufactured in another state, that it is subject to the Fed.
Not what our Founding Fathers had in mind..........

[nogods]

That's not entirely true. The Constitution states the Fed has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not intra state. There has not been a test case for a purely intra state item, AFAK. The only recent case I am aware of was for marajuana, where the court ruled the pot in one state is not substantially different from the pot in another to make it intra state. By stamping manufactured and for use in Montana (for example) only should make it beyond the reach of the Feds.
However, they might say since the raw materials are manufactured in another state, that it is subject to the Fed.
Not what our Founding Fathers had in mind..........

The courts can find interstate activity in just about every commercial activity. It would be nearly impossible to establish that no part of the manufacturing process involved interstate commerce. a stamp would be meaningless.