View Single Post
Old April 5, 2011, 06:08 PM   #147
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,130
I just went back through the recording, and Kanne's actual wording was, "my guess is, from the reading of these briefs, a lot of people that prepared this have never been to a firing range. [28:30]"

Funny thing is, there was a time when someone could have persuaded a court with an argument like, "when people congregate with guns, things that might be…just…um…casual disagreement, or fights, can end up causing injury or harm."

The main problem for Feldman is that he kept bringing up regulatory concerns as justification for an outright ban. Judge Sykes observed that "those are regulatory concerns. This is a prohibition. This is an absolute ban. (…) This ordinance is prohibitory, it's not regulatory. That's a huge difference for 2nd Amendment purposes. [23:15]"

Feldman still didn't get it, and he kept going off on the "stray bullet" thing.

He also tried to dredge up ordinances from the Founding era that outlawed the discharge of weapons in populated areas. As the court noted, those ordinances had nothing to do with controlled ranges; they were meant to keep people from shooting in the streets. Feldman tried to equate "open discharge" of firearms with their discharge on a controlled range, but the court wasn't hearing it.

At that point, Judge Rovner observed, "you will probably have some real problems when this reaches the merits. [25:35]"

Kanne also pointed out that Federal courthouses had indoor shooting ranges in them, and from the tone of the conversation, it sounded like he (and possibly Judge Sykes) were well familiar with them.

Judge Sykes was the one to watch. She reiterated her argument from the Skoien case that the 2nd Amendment deserved strict scrutiny, and that it enjoyed the same protections as the 1st.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Page generated in 0.03871 seconds with 7 queries