Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/65962332/McDonald-v-CHicago-Oral-Arguments
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 08:07:13
Document Index: 249494865

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 60', 'art 43', 'art 12', 'arts 24', 'arty 13', 'art 41', 'arts 20']

McDonald v CHicago Oral Arguments | Incorporation Of The Bill Of Rights | Second Amendment To The United States Constitution
Uploaded by kascorp
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., Petitioners v. : : : No. 08-1521
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C. Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:13 a.m. APPEARANCES: ALAN GURA, ESQ., Alexandria, Virginia; on behalf of Petitioners. PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners. JAMES A. FELDMAN, ESQ., Special Assistant Corporation Counsel; on behalf of Respondents.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALAN GURA, ESQ.
for Respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al., in support of Petitioners JAMES A. FELDMAN, ESQ.
P R O C E E D I N G S (10:13 a.m.) CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hear
argument first this morning in Case 08-1521, McDonald v. The City of Chicago. Mr. Gura. ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALAN GURA ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS MR. GURA: please the Court: Although Chicago's ordinances cannot survive the faithful application of due process doctrines, there is an even simpler, more essential reason for reversing the lower court's judgment. The Constitution's plain Mr. Chief Justice, and may it
text, as understood by the people that ratified it, mandates this result. In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship. The rights so guaranteed were not trivial. The Civil War was not fought because States were
MR. they have relied on regulating the use of firearms based on us. meaning States have relied on having no grand juries. which have been the law for 140 years. when there is a great consensus that it was simply not decided correctly. especially in a constitutional matter. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What is it that has -­ has been caused by it that we have to remedy. GURA: Your Honor. but it's a big -. the Slaughter-House cases should not have any stare decisis effect before the Court. The rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment were understood to include the fundamental rights honored by any free government and the personal guarantees of the -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Of course. The Court has always found that when a case is extremely wrong. this argument is contrary to the Slaughter-House cases. MR.it's a heavy burden for you to carry to suggest that we ought to overrule that decision. not incorporating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the way that you identify it. the Court.Official . It might be simpler. GURA: State -­ 4 Alderson Reporting Company . States have relied on not having civil trials in certain money cases.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attacking people on the high seas or blocking access to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. it has less force.
States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens. just 5 Alderson Reporting Company . JUSTICE GINSBURG: Are you saying that the rights -. term -­ JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What -. we have the eight Keep and amendments. Am I right in thinking that to keep and bear arms would be included even if we had no Second Amendment.in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected? MR. bear arms would be included even absent the Second Amendment. But just tell us the I mean. so I know you say that's included. GURA: Although it's impossible to give a full list of all the unenumerated rights that might be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. GURA: Justice Ginsburg. but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional. that is The framers and the public understood the JUSTICE GINSBURG: dimensions of what it is. GURA: Justice Sotomayor. as you envision privileges and immunities? MR.Official .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct. What unenumerated rights would we be declaring privileges and immunities under your conception of it? MR.if you could clarify your conception of privileges and immunities.
GURA: It's -­ Is it easier to do it under JUSTICE SCALIA: privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process? MR. you know.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as it is impossible to do so under the Due Process Clause.whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I suppose the answer to that would be no. at least with respect to the Privileges and Immunities Clause we have wonderful historical guideposts. does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States? MR. why are you asking us to overrule 150. GURA: It is easier in terms. the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition. because -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Then if the answer is no. There are -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. of -. I'm saying. assuming we give. perhaps. Gura. I'm not talking about whether -.Official . no. GURA: Justice Scalia. do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due ? MR. 140 years of 6 Alderson Reporting Company .of the text and history of the original public understanding of -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: No.
I mean. but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. GURA: No. for sure.) MR.even I have acquiesced in it? (Laughter. or perhaps we would be here in a different posture. you know. No. unless you are bucking for a -. 7 Alderson Reporting Company . And indeed.to return. which was our primary theory in the court below. which as much as I think it's wrong. Why do you want to undertake that burden instead of just arguing substantive due process.that court does not have the prerogative to overturn any of this Court's decisions and I think it said -. JUSTICE SCALIA: What you argue is the darling of the professoriate.) MR.Official . I have left law school some time ago and this is not an attempt to -.when you can reach your result under substantive due -. I have -.said as much. had the Seventh Circuit accepted our substantive due process theory. JUSTICE GINSBURG: But that -. we would be extremely happy if the Court reverses the lower court based on the substantive due process theory that we argued in the Seventh Circuit.a place on some law school faculty -­ (Laughter.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prior law. GURA: Justice Scalia. we might not be here. when -.
Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So it was kind of a pass-through in the court of appeals. hold and 8 Alderson Reporting Company . the sort of right that was mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. sell. The unenumerated rights. Parties and give evidence. So I think that there might be two categories of unenumerated rights if a claim were before the Court under that provision. Well. the piece of legislation enacted by a supermajority of Congress. where the Congress said. they gave some concrete examples. for example. to inherit.they listed: To make and enforce contracts. GURA: Justice Ginsburg? JUSTICE GINSBURG: MR. If a right is. purchase. and they are -. the framers clearly used language that to them meant rights beyond those guaranteed in the first eight amendments. lease. over President Johnson's veto. GURA: Yes. and that is: What other enumerated rights? What does the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship embrace? MR. And whenever they spoke about those unenumerated rights.Official . But I really would like you to answer the question that you didn't have an opportunity to finish answering. to sue v. here are the rights of American citizenship.
and we've made great strides in this country giving a greater level of protection to certain rights. That's the sort of right that would be easy to find because there is a contemporaneous source for telling us -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: Even though -. GURA: The large -. Fourth 9 Alderson Reporting Company . GURA: Married women were considered citizens of the United States. and the fact that First Amendment rights were not fully respected. the law did not always protect people fully. GURA: I'm sorry.Official . Second Amendment rights were not always respected. We understand certain rights better today than we did 140 years ago. MR. just like children were considered citizens. which is why the Civil Rights Act -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: at the time. to sue and be sued? MR. Did married women at that No.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 convey real and personal property.even though a large portion of the population at that time didn't have those rights? MR. throughout the nation JUSTICE GINSBURG: time across the nation have the right to contract. However. to hold property. primarily in the South.the population at the time that did not have those rights needed their protection.
For example. Maryland decided that henceforth American history and tradition are important to consider what rights are protected in this country. They don't have First Amendment protection. GURA: As we mentioned -. which is a free society. JUSTICE GINSBURG: But then it's not one expression of this unenumerated rights. to the extent that we have unenumerated rights which the framers and 10 Alderson Reporting Company . free-flowing license. free societies don't respect rights to the same level that we do. It's not basic to any free society.Official . has a monarchy. if the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt.you have to trim your definition. However. So you -. natural rights. It's true that our friends overseas who have more or less civilized. necessarily.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Amendment rights were not always understood well -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: way? Does it work just one I mean. for judges to announce unenumerated rights. MR. this Court in Benton v. England. GURA: As understood by the people who It's not a ratified the Fourteenth Amendment. They have hereditary lords in parliament. MR.as we mentioned in our brief.basic to a free society. or the rights that any free society -. well. a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms.
The importance of the right to protect -. perhaps. MR. GURA: fact -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: Because of the -. what about rights rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people? Would -. can I ask you the same question Justice Ginsburg asked about. would it also be protected under substantive due process if there were no Second Amendment? MR. as Judge O'Scanlon in the Ninth Circuit observed in the Nordyke decision.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ratifiers didn't literally understand. GURA: Yes. JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. GURA: That's correct and.Official . Your Honor. they nonetheless left us guideposts that we can -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Well.would that apply to the entire scope of the Second Amendment or just the 11 Alderson Reporting Company . What about.would that do the job? MR. the Slaughter-House dissenters seemed to arrive at the same point. Gura. what if there were no Second Amendment? You say the right would still be protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. that this Court did in the Glucksberg case.the It would be. That happens to be the test JUSTICE SCALIA: we have used under substantive due process.
in that context. because the Second Amendment codified the understanding of that right that people have historically had in the country. is your position that the rights that are incorporated as essential to the concept of ordered 12 Alderson Reporting Company . perhaps -­ probably identical to that secured by the Second Amendment. a homeowner's right to keep a gun for self-protection against intruders into the home.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right to keep the gun. even outside the -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: I'm assuming we don't have a Second Amendment for purposes of the substantive due process analysis. So there would not be a difference between the right to arms if it were a part of the Second Amendment or -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I thought your -. GURA: An unenumerated right to arms in the absence of the Second Amendment would be.at home. MR. under the -. GURA: The Second Amendment is not so limited and neither is the right to arms.Official .without the Second Amendment. I'm asking you what is the scope of the right to own a gun that is protected by the Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Is it just the right to have it at -. or is the right to parade around the streets with guns? MR. just the Liberty Clause.
does that 13 Alderson Reporting Company . We are not challenging -. Sullivan is incorporated as well? Or is it only some lesser version of the incorporated right? MR.is that same consequence -.we are not the party that is before the Court that is challenging anything that has gone on before in terms of substantive due process. GURA: Yes.maybe I misunderstood it. It's the same. do they bring all of our decisions with them? When you say the First Amendment is covered. You don't just apply the core of the right. but my understanding of the question that's important is this. GURA: With respect to the substantive due process argument that we are making? CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. the States are bound by the rights in all -. Under incorporation by reference. You apply all of the right as it is elaborated by the cases.Official . does that mean New York Times v.with all of the refinements and sophistication with which we interpret them for the Federal Government.that has really nothing to do with -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: I understood the Chief Justice's question -. Is -. We believe that those cases were by and large decided appropriately. it -. and if the Court wishes to reconsider any of them for some reason.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 liberty.
14 Alderson Reporting Company . Your Honor. right different from others? MR.including lots of women in domestic cases.all you have to do is look at the briefs. there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things. their -. When it's free speech versus life. Clement. GURA: Yes. Okay. side guns. too: That when you have the First Amendment. Now.their gun law has saved hundreds. or some of the other amendments.look at -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 same consequence follow if we adopt the privileges and immunities interpretation that you are urging upon us? MR. You know. it's decided by Federal judges. it's decided by State legislatures. How does that work? JUSTICE BREYER: I think that would be useful for either you or Mr. including -­ and they have statistics -. decide in favor of life. GURA: Well -­ There are two ways. Without incorporation. with. This is a highly statistical matter. And the other side disputes it. we very often Here every case will be on one Statistics. think of this. Look at the statistics. one side Chicago says that says a million people killed by guns.Official . but not often free speech versus life. on the other side human life. if you've thought this through. One is Is this JUSTICE BREYER: that -.
I was dissenting. Federal judges should carry this MR. JUSTICE BREYER: Heller. not hunting. I didn't -. look. but rather to what 15 Alderson Reporting Company . GURA: Heller stood for the proposition that some activities are within the core boundaries of a right. in the city. GURA: out in the same way that was announced in this Court's decision in Heller. GURA: We decide that by looking. JUSTICE BREYER: To be specific.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 balancing life versus guns. rather than legislatures in the States in a Federal system. we don't think it is several hundred and. How are Federal judges in your opinion. we save several hundred human lives every year. but that's a dissenter's view. And the other side says. not to which side has the better statistics. MR.Official . that doesn't matter. and so long as people wish to do something that is literally understood to be part of the boundaries of the right it is to be protected. suppose Chicago says.didn't think explained that with great -. nothing like that. how are Federal judges supposed to carry this out? I want to see where we are going. nothing outside the city. How do you decide the case? MR. moreover. by banning handguns not in the hills. I didn't think it explained it with total clarity. though.
no matter what. we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States. because that policy choice was made for us in the Constitution. And you may have a great deal of divergence 16 Alderson Reporting Company . those are -. do we? MR.Official .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the framers said in the Constitution. you know -. whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can't be used. resolved on the basis of statistics? constitutional right. If you want to have. we mentioned in Heller concealed carry laws. GURA: The city cannot ban guns that are within the common use as protected by the right to arms. why would this one be If there is a That's correct.those are matter that we didn't decide in Heller. Justice Scalia. JUSTICE BREYER: You are saying they can have -. that the city just can't have guns even if they are saving hundreds of lives. We don't -.I think I mean. GURA: and as your opinion -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Well. JUSTICE SCALIA: There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not. they cannot ban them? MR.we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics.
CLEMENT: Mr. For the JUSTICE SCALIA: legislatures.. Your Honor. But they would be for the For the judges. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. the rights enumerated in the Constitution are entitled to a greater measure of respect. and on that I suppose you would do statistics. 17 Alderson Reporting Company .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from State to State. MR.. Well. wouldn't you? MR. GURA: A legislature should respect the fact that there is a constitutional right at issue. and this Court in footnote 27 in Heller explained that under the Carolene Products paradigm. we do agree that statistics are not important to determine whether or not a right -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: judges. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MR. ET AL. GURA: Or the legislature would. GURA: That's right. INC. If I may reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. counsel. MR. footnote 4. Chief Justice and may it Thank you. ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL D. CLEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION. Clement.Official .
I think in that respect the Sixth Amendment is a bit of an outlier. what is the last case in which we incorporated ae substantive provision? MR. would you comment on Justice Kennedy's question about whether it necessarily incorporates every jot and tittle of the Federal right into the Federal. For most of the provisions and as far as I know all of the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated against the States.Official . protects a fundamental preexisting right that is guaranteed to the people -. keeping in mind that with regard to trial by jury in criminal cases there is a difference. 18 Alderson Reporting Company . non-unanimous juries. JUSTICE STEVENS: Well. The Second Amendment. Why does this incorporation have to be every bit as broad as the Second Amendment itself? MR. Justice Stevens. CLEMENT: Well. this Court has incorporated basically all the jurisprudence that comes with that. like the First and the Fourth. Clement. I guess maybe it's Mapp. CLEMENT: Well.­ JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. the case for incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause is remarkably straightforward.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 please the Court: Under this court's existing jurisprudence.
as opposed to procedural rights. cases involving incorporation of substantive rights. Sullivan is the law of all 50 States.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is one way of thinking about it. And I think that in a sense the virtue of that approach is probably even more apparent with the Second Amendment than it might be 19 Alderson Reporting Company . why does it have to be precisely the same scope as the Second Amendment? MR.the liberty subclause. with respect to certainly like the First Amendment guarantees that this Court has incorporated through the liberty -. We could quibble whether -." and "liberty" picks up the First Amendment and so forth. of the Due Process Clause. I mean. but the substantive cases comes under the word "liberty. et cetera. if you will. And if it does. quibble about the -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: case. But in any event. et cetera.certainly I understand this Court's jurisprudence as incorporating all the cases that go along with that. So New York times v.Official . CLEMENT: Well.I think of the Fourth Amendment as more of a substantive guarantee. there too I think this Court -. sure. And I take it it's the word "liberty" that picks up the Second Amendment. we could Mapp was a procedural I'm asking you Mapp was a Fourth Amendment case. The procedural cases come in under the due process language.
non-unanimous criminal jury case. though. or we couldn't have done the criminal jury. CLEMENT: Again. though I guess I would stress that I think that. have we? MR. the Bill of Rights I read. whatever the debates about substantive due process when it comes to unenumerated rights. CLEMENT: That's also right. it's 20 Alderson Reporting Company . JUSTICE SCALIA: I guess we -. We have not adopted a more rigid rule for the Federal Government than we have adopted for the States in either of those instances. MR. I think the gist of this Court's incorporation doctrine is that the textual provisions of the Bill of Rights stand in a favored position with respect to incorporation. but we've never said it had to be literally had to be all the way down the line. Your Honor.Official .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with some other jurisprudence. So Glucksberg has this discussion about the standard for unenumerated rights. as I read this Court's selective -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: They sit in a favored position. but it starts that off by saying of course the Bill of Rights are different. And of course.I guess we have applied substantive due process with regard to the necessity of permitting homosexual conduct and with respect to the necessity of permitting abortion on demand.
just as it was the precedent this Court relied on in incorporating the assembly and petition rights of the First Amendment in the DeJonge case. that if this Court's not going to reconsider its Privileges or Immunities Clause jurisprudence. Just to dwell for a moment if I'd could on the First and Second Amendment.Official .and I think the alliance here or the similarity between the First and the Second Amendments are very stark in this respect -. That seems to me to be a pretty good working And 21 Alderson Reporting Company . the Cruikshank case actually stands as very good precedent for incorporating the Second Amendment. the reason is Cruikshank -.the whole reason that Cruikshank said the First and Second Amendments aren't privileges of national citizenship is because they were preexisting rights that didn't depend on the Constitution for their existence.this Court has incorporated essentially not just the amendment and not just the right. I think it's striking. very striking.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interesting that the one place that I see where the Court has not effectively translated all the case law is one of the procedural rights. And I think with respect to the substantive rights -. but all of the jurisprudence as well. the Sixth Amendment criminal jury right.
certainly the most logical consequence. I do think the consequence of that. one that is so fundamental and basic that it preexisted our very Constitution. carrying over a lot. this Court was quite candid that it wasn't going to adopt sort of a shadow version of the Federal 22 Alderson Reporting Company . Heller case. And I think in the more recent incorporation cases. because the Miller decision of this Court sowed confusion. as I say. I think the exact same logic would apply to the Second Amendment here and. would be to carry over the jurisprudence under the Second Amendment. right now that's not That's carrying over the difficult enough to develop the Second Amendment jurisprudence that you wouldn't want to make it more difficult by having to develop a Federal Second Amendment jurisprudence and then some sort of shadow version of that jurisprudence for the States.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 definition of what a fundamental right is.Official . And so it's not surprising that DeJonge cited Cruikshank as favorable precedent for incorporation. right. And I would think that it's going to be Now. we do not have substantial Second Amendment jurisprudence. But I think in a way that points up to the fact that one of the virtues of incorporation is that.
they have the same textual guarantee to the people. don't see why it has to be exactly the same. JUSTICE STEVENS: That's true of the criminal jury trial right. I just I can understand your argument that it should be substantially the same.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guarantee or some watered down version of the Federal guarantee. In fact.Official . they trace their origins to preexisting rights back to the English Bill of Rights. back to even earlier constitutional history. but it really saw the virtue of incorporating not just the right but the jurisprudence that came with that right. all of those things? And yet we don't -. 23 Alderson Reporting Company . but I don't see that there's anything in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment that would justify saying it must be precisely the same.it's not exactly the same. And I think if you apply that jurisprudence. or of any of our cases. I think if you compare the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the Second Amendment. too. And so I do think that's in a sense something that counts in favor of incorporating the Second Amendment and doing so through the Due Process Clause. the same way this Court has dealt with the other substantive guarantees of the Bill of Rights. the case really is very straightforward.
Official . once you determine that the right is incorporated. putting the Sixth Amendment to one side. MR. to put it lightly. and I think the same thing can be 24 Alderson Reporting Company . Justice Stevens. a gloss on the text of the Due Process clause -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: Incorporation jurisprudence is -. I mean. CLEMENT: Justice Stevens. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That still allows So -- scope. That's right. rather than in an effort to determine whether parts of it are incorporated or not. since I think that the incorporation clause is -. I think the trend of all of this Court's incorporation jurisprudence has been more towards complete incorporation of the right and the jurisprudence. the incorporation jurisprudence is. Mr. Chief Justice.I mean. CLEMENT: That's right. and again.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. But I would suppose that would come up in the application of the right. MR. CLEMENT: Well. for recognizing that the States might have broader interests that the Federal Government doesn't have. which I think is a bit of an outlier in the jurisprudence here. you know.we haven't had an incorporation case for 30 years or more. But I guess I would say is that. Mapp is a perfect illustration. That's right.
JUSTICE STEVENS: -. there may be unique issues about national parks that the States are not going to have to confront. to go back to Mapp just as an illustration.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said for any other one of the other incorporated amendments. well. So I think the same thing might be true in There are certainly going to be the First Amendment.let's bring the interesting that during this whole period. CLEMENT: jurisprudence with you. we will talk about the exclusionary rule later. We will just And incorporate the Fourth Amendment's basic guarantee.it's You -. situations that the Federal government confronts that the State governments won't confront the exact analog situation and vice versa.the jury -. kind of in for a penny. you know. Justice 25 Alderson Reporting Company . in for a pound -­ JUSTICE STEVENS: MR. Now. again.the exclusionary rule.you -­ -. and the jurisprudence can take that into account. no. maybe we won't incorporate the Fourth -. the trend of later cases was to say. And I think. But I think that's far different from saying that we really are going to have the shadow jurisprudence for one of the provisions.Official . when this Court first incorporated the Fourth Amendment and said.
why shouldn't we go back completely to Justice Harlan's view about the way in which the Bill of Rights applies to the States? MR. CLEMENT: justice. And the way that -. There There is a difference -. Mr. Here we have right in the amendment written a militia-related clause. and he's a very important member of our -.in the recent years. And we have followed Justice Harlan rather than the majority on a number of cases in -.of our history. who actually had an -. the First Amendment expression.the 26 Alderson Reporting Company .Official . maybe we should go back to the first Justice Harlan. MR. You have the First Amendment.with other amendments.and in his total incorporation -­ JUSTICE ALITO: Well. CLEMENT: Well. He is very much against you.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Harlan staked out a separate position on whether it should be just the substance of the right or the -. that would be much more similar to the approach -­ JUSTICE BREYER: But there is a difference. I think.the every detail.an approach. I think if we are going to go back. Clement. CLEMENT: Maybe we should go back -­ -. Justice Harlan was a terrific Justice Black was a terrific justice -­ JUSTICE ALITO: MR. is a difference in the other amendments.
one of the JUSTICE BREYER: have read. So we are They are just starting with a difference in purposes at the least. Princeton. et cetera. As to the second. is that -. it's pretty hard for me to see why you would incorporate it.Official . given the way that this Court wrestled in the Heller decision with how to basically apply the operative clause in light of the prefatory clause. why one would want to come to a different conclusion that -­ JUSTICE BREYER: reasons -­ MR. And shouldn't that make a difference in how you incorporate? MR. CLEMENT: -.you Because the -. that all the law -. Yale. I mean. is the right to have a gun to shoot a burglar. I understand it.the way that the right might be incorporated in respect to that is light years different. I'm sure.at least. for reasons I won't go into. And as to the first. CLEMENT: Well. -. London.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way -. two separate things. From the way it might be interpreted if you think what it is.affected the case. I guess what I -.what I don't understand is why.the professors at Harvard. that say even Blackstone in the 17th century thought that this is primarily a right to raise an army through parliament 27 Alderson Reporting Company .
MR. Mr. Chief Justice. which goes a long way to understand why the Heller decision came out the way that it came out.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to -. I'm just saying think of that brief. FELDMAN: please the Court: Mr. Chief Justice. obviously this Court was focused very much on Blackstone's writings in the Heller decision. and you will see the differences even accepting Heller. You can respond if I mean. Clement.I can't go on here.Official . and I think the majority read Blackstone actually as being primarily concerned with the self-defense right. And I would simply finish by noting that the one thing that I think we can come to a conclusion about Blackstone is the very fact that Blackstone dwelled on the right is good evidence that it's a fundamental right that should apply to the States. ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES A. CLEMENT: Thank you. 28 Alderson Reporting Company . briefly. and may it Thank you. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: you want. Feldman. FELDMAN ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS MR.
implicit in the concept of ordered liberty? It sounds very nice. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill. FELDMAN: I think it was 1937. Your JUSTICE SCALIA: Has it been the basis of our decision in any case since Palko? MR.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Honor. And the very same features that make firearms valuable for self-defense as the court noted in Heller -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: When is the last time an opinion of ours made that the test. Since then it has used it in -.the Court has -. It used it in Mapp. But when is the last time we used it? MR. I don't believe it was.Official . It has used it in other cases.the Court has used the term in a number of cases. States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. FELDMAN: I think the -.not in corporation cases as recently as the Glucksberg case. but I think -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: And it was also the Harlan 29 Alderson Reporting Company . The Second Amendment should not be incorporated and applied to the States because the right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
the -.the framers did not directly apply the Bill of Rights to the States. I do. I do. but is 30 Alderson Reporting Company .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 view. in a -. From -. Yes. although a separate opinion in the Griswold case and in Poe v. that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. As far as I know. FELDMAN: Yes. And here's the In 1833. FELDMAN: reason why. again. what it asks is not just is something in the Constitution.the only reason -.and when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified in the late 1860's.in a ruling that Chief Justice Marshall said was not a difficult one although important. no justice has ever disagreed with that -. And the Court has always understood that when it's applying the Due Process Clause.with that ruling or suggested he was wrong in so ruling. Ullman.Official .it was -. Do you think it best describes the approach that the Court has used over the years? MR. this Court has held in Barron v. I was going to ask JUSTICE KENNEDY: Mr. They gave us some generalities. Baltimore. Clement what test he thought the Court used if you looked at all you think implicit in the concept of ordered liberty? MR.
but it doesn't have the right to trial by -. Court elaborated on in Duncan. You can say Japan is a free country.there are a lot of JUSTICE SCALIA: countries that don't give the right to trial by jury. MR. I think. The -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this something that is so fundamental it's a necessary condition -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Is the right to trial by jury implicit in the concept of ordered liberty? MR. as you said. even England does not give it in all criminal cases. when you are talking about a procedural right that is embedded in a particular procedural system.the right to a jury is 31 Alderson Reporting Company .by jury. FELDMAN: I think that it -­ -. FELDMAN: I think it is in the following sense. FELDMAN: I -­ My goodness -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: MR.the concept only makes sense.the -. I think that's And that is what the I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty. not any abstract system of ordered liberty.that's exactly right.Official . if you limit it to our system. Under our system. you have to look at how that system operates and how the -­ the right works within that particular system. the -. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: exactly -.
I agree -.what restrictions did the framers of the Second Amendment impose -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: But I thought its rationale was that because of its fundamental character. why wouldn't you think. was not how important the Second Amendment right was.I -. for all the reasons given in Heller.I -. it seems to me. it was what did it say and what did the -. and that's because it was fundamental. between -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well. I -.I don't think 32 Alderson Reporting Company . If it's not fundamental. all people.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 essential. most people in the United States. or how implicit it is in our system. FELDMAN: think that's right. FELDMAN: The question that the Court was addressing in Heller was not -.I I was just distinguishing that's right.Official . that the Second Amendment right is essential to our system.again. the right to bear arms must be understood as separate from the qualifying phrase of the militia clause. whatever it may be with respect to France or England or anywhere else? MR. the public meaning of the Second Amendment was that there was an individual right to bear arms. then Heller is wrong. MR. MR. FELDMAN: No.I -. if you think I -.
as to that.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that that's right.had -. was -.Official .the reason it was put in the Bill of Rights was because the framers were concerned about the Federal government disarming the militia. The question is what right -.it was important.I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment. the reason it -. but The Second Amendment actually what Heller says is this: preexisted the -. was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant. But the reason it was codified.or the right that's in the Second Amendment preexisted its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. MR. The right of self-defense which had been previously recognized and highly valued. quote. had little to do with its codification -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: That may be -­ 33 Alderson Reporting Company .its inclusion -.what did they impose upon the -. I would agree. it's not a question of whether it's fundamental any more than with the grand jury clause or with the civil jury trial right -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I don't see how you And can read -. FELDMAN: I -.according to Heller. whether you want to label it fundamental or not.as restrictions upon the government when the Second Amendment was ratified.
That may be the reason it And that's the But it was put there. I guess the answer is yes.the various rights in the First Amendment were put there in 1791 is exactly the reason why it was held -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FELDMAN: Yes. crucial fact. and the Second Amendment in this respect is unlike any of the other amendments that have been incorporated. The same -.I agree as far as the But now there is a different question being asked. it doesn't seem to me to make any difference why they chose to put that one there as opposed to other ones that they didn't put there. aren't we? MR. FELDMAN: Constitution.we are supposed to read the words of the Constitution.the clause -. It's either there or not.with its inclusion in the JUSTICE SCALIA: was put there. FELDMAN: Federal government goes. JUSTICE SCALIA: 34 Alderson Reporting Company . That -. It is either or it is not there.Official . -. JUSTICE BREYER: So do we read the -.the militia clause -.very same reason why the first -. And if it's there. MR.clause at the beginning -.why it was incorporated and applied to the States under the 14th amendment.
Yes.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was? (Laughter. All the arguments you make against 35 Alderson Reporting Company . That was true also in 1791. FELDMAN: Heller said. but it That wouldn't have been in the Constitution for that. that is -­ And does that not give us a JUSTICE BREYER: clue as to what they thought that -­ MR. sure. Very well.the corner of liberty JUSTICE BREYER: That's your point? MR. had little to do with putting it in the Constitution. FELDMAN: Well. This is a right that has always been subject to the political process -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well.Official . the importance of firearms in self-defense. FELDMAN: That's what -­ -. FELDMAN: Thank you.) JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. and doesn't that JUSTICE BREYER: suggest what the purpose of putting the right there is even under Heller or at least one purpose -­ MR.is. That's what -. and it's still going to be subject to the political process if the Court determines that it is incorporated in the Due Process Clause.and that's what And here's the difference -. it is it is now urged that this right is fundamental because of its important.
FELDMAN: That's -. maybe that's right. you should not be able to have concealed carry -. as technology has changed.that -. that is something that has always been effectively regulated through the political process and especially at the State and local level. I don't think so. But that doesn't mean you don't incorporate the Second Amendment to allow you to enforce that type of regulation.well.Official . FELDMAN: No. not to put it in the Constitution -. the framers would have been satisfied to leave this to the States and to leave this to the political process. And through our history. We haven't said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller. JUSTICE ALITO: And your position is that a 36 Alderson Reporting Company .that's -­ And so the arguments CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: you make. State and local regulation has altered to draw the balance that has to be drawn. MR. given this context.that -. if the only issue had been self-defense. The argument that I am making is that States and local governments under the political process.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 incorporation it seems to me are arguments you should make in favor of regulation under the Second Amendment. which as far as we know.that as far as the right to self-defense goes. as well. MR.
Official . What is the due process It JUSTICE SCALIA: what the States say. there is always review under the Due Process Clause and under the Equal Protection Clause for provisions that are arbitrary. MR. there's always -­ Firearms kill people is What basis would there be I -. FELDMAN: If the State and local government did that.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -. FELDMAN: Right and that has -­ Other countries have done JUSTICE SCALIA: that. is certainly relevant that in the last 220 years no State has done that or even come close.a State or local government could completely ban all firearms? MR. and -. FELDMAN: It has not led to States doing 37 Alderson Reporting Company . FELDMAN: Well.and we ban it. One question would be. and in fact as the briefs from the other side of the case from some of the States show. MR. I think would it raise two questions.I don't understand.to deny that? MR. they are quite the opposite direction. But the second -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: JUSTICE KENNEDY: liberty -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: to -. And I would want to know why a State had done that.
FELDMAN: The second argument would be. JUSTICE SCALIA: But if they did do it. MR. the second -. but I am willing to accept that there is such a right. MR. I think would you have to say it's perfectly okay.in this country. if in the very unlikely event a that a State or local government tried to do that. this part of liberty under the due -. JUSTICE KENNEDY: said there were two reasons.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it in -.you So you have given us both 38 Alderson Reporting Company . if by that is. Court has never said -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: But would self-defense be In other words.sound -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: dangerous. arbitrary or is that actually based on a reasoned -­ that -. The reason is guns are the Court at that point. then the Court might have to wrestle at that point with the question of the relationship between self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms. FELDMAN: No. And you have given -. FELDMAN: I mean. do you have a substantive right to self-defense. the Court actually has never answered that question.Official .there would One would be was be two rights questions actually.substantive meaning of the Due Process Clause? MR.
in order to protect the militia against being disarmed by the Federal Government. and -. if -. this self-defense right we need in the Constitution in order -.if a State or local government banned all firearms it might raise the question of.if there is a constitutional right to self-defense.as the Court said in the Heller opinion -­ the common meanings that the word had in 1791. It took a preexisting right that had not been -. it imposed limitation on the State. given that there -.Official .if the challenge -. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That sounds an awful 39 Alderson Reporting Company . how could some member of the Court write the -. has the State prohibited you from reasonable means of exercising that right? JUSTICE KENNEDY: Without repeating that and just so I understand your position. and it said.and what I say about the right to self-defense is.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in your answer to Justice Alito's question? MR.was not codified in the Constitution. the common meaning -. FELDMAN: Yes. but that Heller was correct? MR.the Court would just say that what Heller held was if you look at the meanings that the words in the Second Amendment had. FELDMAN: I -.this opinion to say that this right is not fundamental.
"had little to do with the codification of the right. and I'm not arguing today about what it consists of. FELDMAN: And that that -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot to me like the argument we heard in Heller on the losing side. quote.Official .that the Federal Government might disarm the militia.that's correct. it's actually what the What the Court said in its opinion is the reason it was codified was the concern that the framers had with the -. MR. FELDMAN: Court said in its opinion. Not self-defense. FELDMAN: That -. but the point being that this was a right that had been -." JUSTICE SCALIA: reason it was codified. Self-defense according to the Court in Heller.-­ And to say that that wasn't JUSTICE SCALIA: the reason it was codified doesn't say anything about what it consists of. Well. Today -­ Let me see if I understand JUSTICE ALITO: 40 Alderson Reporting Company . was codified was to enforce the traditional right of the people to bear arms. They said that is the They did not say that that is The function of what the function of what was codified. MR.the framers as far as we know would have been satisfied to leave to the political process if it was just a question of the feature of it. MR.
I thought you said a minute ago that if
a State or local government were to ban firearms completely, this Court might hold that that violates substantive due process because the right to use a firearm for self-defense is -- might be held to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; is that right? MR. FELDMAN: JUSTICE ALITO: That is correct. And -- but I thought you
began by saying that the right to keep and bear arms is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. MR. FELDMAN: The right to keep and bear
arms that was recognized-- I don't actually think the right to keep and bear arms itself is. Perhaps the
right to self-defense is, and then like other rights, similar rights, if the Court were to hold that that is constitutionally protected, the question would be is the State now giving you sufficient means to exercise that right? Not whatever means you want but sufficient means I
so that you reasonably can exercise for that right.
would think that would be the only way that that kind of analysis could go if you start off from self-defense. JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Feldman, let me take Let's assume
your argument at -- at its face value.
that the only reason it is there and the only purpose it
serves is the militia purpose.
Isn't that militia
purpose just as much defeated by allowing the States to take away the militia's arms as it would be by allowing the Federal Government to take away the militia's arms? MR. FELDMAN: Yes, but I -- that -­ Then so -­
But that -­ -- even if you assume that
the whole thing turns around the militia prologue, that prologue is just as -- just as important with respect to the State's depriving the people of arms. MR. FELDMAN: But I don't think the argument
-- the primary argument that is being made today, that this is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or sufficiently fundamental or whichever other formulas -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: now. MR. FELDMAN: No, I'm not. Let's just focus on your You are switching horses
argued that -- that -- that deals with the prologue. You say this is different because of that prologue. But
that prologue has just as much force if the States take away the militia's arms as if the Federal Government does. MR. FELDMAN: I -- I think that few people
today would say -- and in fact few people in 1868 would say that the concern to protect the State militias is something that's so fundamental or essential to a concept of ordered liberty or central to our system that it has to be protected -­ JUSTICE BREYER: Well, suppose it is.
Suppose it is; assume for argument's sake that it is. Still, I take from what you are saying that -- let's make up an imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart, and we give it to James Madison and the other framers. And he would say insofar as that right to bear
arms is important for the purpose of maintaining the militia, it's high on the ordered liberty chart. Insofar as the right to bear arms is there to shoot burglars, it's low on the ordered liberty chart. And if that's what they would say, it's conceivable that part of this amendment would go through and be incorporated, namely that part which would prevent a law that would disarm people to the extent they couldn't form militias. But that part which would
disarm people to the extent that they couldn't shoot burglars, that would not be incorporated. MR. FELDMAN: It -- that would be -- that
would be possible, but another -- another way to look at it is, that the question that the Court had -- the Court
I don't And what I was really responding to Justice Breyer was.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has never answered the question. that before an amendment applies to the States you need something more than just finding that it is in the Constitution. FELDMAN: think the Court would. I -. which I'm not sure you answered.it's not a question of 44 Alderson Reporting Company . is your theory that you simply -. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But to get back to Justice Breyer's point. along with all of our decisions? So why would we not look at all of our decisions under the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. is this implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or should this be incorporated under any other test? JUSTICE ALITO: By -­ But if we took the approach -. why would we not do the same thing with respect to all the applications of all the amendments that up to this point have been regarded as being completely incorporated.Official .I don't think -.if we took the approach that Justice Breyer outlined. but it has always been understood from 1868 on. and the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment and rank all of though interpretations on some scale of ordered liberty? MR. we understand that the Second Amendment is in the Constitution and binds the Federal Government.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: argument is all in or all out. FELDMAN: I think that -.excuse MR. I -. So your No. that's not the argument 45 Alderson Reporting Company . FELDMAN: me. because all that shows is the framers -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: or out. what is in Would -­ No. I -. MR. My answer to the question would be -. right? MR.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is it in or is it out? and what is out? You are saying well. I'm trying to get No.I know your CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: you to take a position on whether or not you want us to not only pick and choose among which amendments are part of our abstract notion of ordered liberty. and this part isn't. FELDMAN: Okay.actually my -. or if you want us also to take amendments that might be in and refine them and shave them off a little bit and say well. MR. FELDMAN: that we are making. this part of the amendment is in.I think that So you think it's in the best argument is that it's out.I think it's out.Official . for this reason: When the framers -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: reasons. Okay.
Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his job? He did.the framers had their reasons for putting -­ JUSTICE BREYER: Madison went about his job? MR.step one is. yes. even that high part. the things that the framers -. That's how you think CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: That's how he went about it. FELDMAN: I think the framers had reasons to put everything in the Constitution that they put in it. Step two is. actually. FELDMAN: No. The argument that we're -­ Step one -. I think that -­ He did.in our view. even that that high part. nobody could think was incorporated. FELDMAN: I -. But the question about whether it should be incorporated against the States is a different question than whether they put it in the Constitution. MR. FELDMAN: Okay. FELDMAN: The argument we're making -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. 46 Alderson Reporting Company . MR. And what you have in the Second Amendment. look at what's high. Do you think that's how Madison went about MR. three is.Official . No. Step JUSTICE BREYER: make my chart. JUSTICE BREYER: I'm asking Counsel.
it's clear -. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. or is it any other articulation of our incorporation doctrine that supports your view? MR. it's not 47 Alderson Reporting Company .Official . we have to look at it in the context of our history. or our history. FELDMAN: I think that's the underlying standard. So address his question as to why. in our structure.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and it's right clear on the face of it from the prologue.that it has to be applied against the States. Feldman. is the reason they put it in the Constitution is not the primary reason why people today are arguing that this is a right that is so fundamental that -. our structure. but the Court has certainly looked at our history and our traditions in answering this question. but not fundamental enough to be incorporated. and I think they are relevant in this area. Is it the ordered liberty concept alone in our jurisprudence that you are relying upon. We have drawn a line. if we look at it. our selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause does suggest that there are some rights that were fundamental enough to be incorporated and some that are fundamental. as they were -JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: The Chief says: Yes.it's clear from the opinion in Heller.
I have already discussed that. FELDMAN: What the Court actually said in Heller was that there were two States at the time. go into it again. As far as today.a couple of them. -.incorporate. that had a firearms right. Now.there were possibly two more where the evidence was a little bit more ambiguous. two to four -. and with -.recognize that only in connection with the militia.Official .the reasons even that the framers thought -. Yes. Does that suggest anything about -­ about how fundamental it is generally? MR. FELDMAN: Yes. in 1791. FELDMAN: think it's not. some of those States -. and the reasons why -.I We have discussed already 1791. and I think it's -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fundamental enough to -­ MR. and it's really quite 48 Alderson Reporting Company . The -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Eleven of the colonies had I don't want to a guarantee at the time that the Constitution was adopted. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: MR.well. at least. and I believe something like 44 States currently have in their constitutions protection of the right to bear arms. it is true that 44 States have some kind of recognition of a right to keep and bear arms.
which is what you assert can be done. or the like. FELDMAN: The overwhelming consensus 49 Alderson Reporting Company . Many other of the rights that are recognized in State constitutions include provisions that really would be unheard of. I think that -­ What's the purpose of a JUSTICE SCALIA: State constitutional guarantee which has at the end of it "subject to such regulation as the legislature may proscribe.regulation of these items is a part of our tradition and -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: "Subject to such regulation" certainly excludes banning them entirely.the same features that make them useful for self-defense make them also useful as instruments of violent crime. say.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 different than the right that this Court recognized in Heller.Official . MR. like.that would make a nullity of the constitutional requirement." if that regulation includes banning it entirely? That -. Their -. and accidental death. and that actually point to the reasons why this is not fundamental. freedom of speech or freedoms of religion. MR. FELDMAN: No. suicide. And that points out the other difference. Because firearms are -. that say: They have provisions Subject to such regulation as the legislature may proscribe.
I didn't think so. JUSTICE SCALIA: so why did your last argument make any sense? MR.I'm What I'm saying is that the right that is embodied in the wide variety of different State constitutions. FELDMAN: I -.Official .I didn't think I was. And that is -. JUSTICE SCALIA: MR.and the kinds of firearms that have traditionally been banned -­ 50 Alderson Reporting Company . JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that what you are asserting here. No. FELDMAN: sorry. the overwhelming consensus is that what the States have determined as a result of their own processes and in light of their own conditions is that you can't ban all kinds of firearms. Is that -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. but you can ban some kinds of firearms. that the States have to allow firearms? MR. FELDMAN: That's fine. and that is not the right that this Court recognized in Heller. what I'm saying -. FELDMAN: No. either. as long as you are allowing some kind of firearm.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 among the State courts in interpreting the wide variety of different types of provisions that they have is that it imposes a reasonable regulation standard that is not violated by banning a particular weapon or a particular class of weapons.
At or around that time. Well -. FELDMAN: We said as much in Heller.not necessarily for the whole State -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: Handguns in the home? Handguns in the home? That's what Heller addressed? 51 Alderson Reporting Company .Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well. in Texas. which are not firearms.if the Court incorporates the Second Amendment. and so on. all of those may be perfectly valid today.a ban on handguns is invalid.Official . but are also arms under the Second Amendment. kinds of firearms that have traditionally been banned by the States and that actually the period around the time of the Fourteenth Amendment is a good period to look. or -. MR. there are numerous States that had regulations barring the carrying and even that go up to the point of possession of pistols and Bowie knives. which you think are reasonable and your friends think may not be reasonable. FELDMAN: I think the Court in Heller did hold that a ban on -. In the 1860's and the 1870's. That was the holding of the case. And these are -­ these were laws that were passed that are very close to that. in Wyoming. are valid or not. places that -.and the All right. Incorporation doesn't say anything by itself about whether those types of regulations.
well.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't. FELDMAN: They banned -. if you -. those were responding to local conditions at the time. But there are some jurisdictions that have found that's not to be the case throughout our history.actually. and in such a way -. and whatever of firearms is appropriate. and And they were generally upheld at that reasonably found.no. has been that in this country. time.and some of the judicial decisions even say: This was intended to eliminate these weapons from our jurisdiction. the history of firearms regulation. FELDMAN: But if you look at the decision -.I can't say that they banned handguns in the home per -­ JUSTICE SCALIA: No. it has been widely recognized that in many places it's appropriate to carry firearms. that allowing broad use. And that political process here is 52 Alderson Reporting Company . MR. and generally. some of them banned the sale. not -. they banned carrying them anywhere in the jurisdiction. you can't. And that has been a State and local decision that has worked through the political process in those jurisdictions. And many jurisdictions have found. Now. because of the risk that firearms pose. carriage.Official . because they MR. if you look at the decisions.
Official . I don't think that has ever been the case And as far as I know. with local cultures. of the Bill of Rights. here. where the States have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations.that has been a part of our -.but there are That provisions of the Constitution. the framers didn't think that was the case with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. that have been incorporated against the States. is that one basis. rights respecting -­ rights respecting property. and with local views about the necessarily difficult questions about how best to protect public safety.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another distinction between the Second Amendment and some of the other amendments that have been incorporated. It's a right that gets controlled in accordance with local conditions. process does. the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. for incorporating the other amendments and for applying them against the States has been that there is a concern about a discrete minority or a highly unpopular view that is not going to get a fair shake in the political process. since -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: But there -.of our history since 1860. is -.why can't we do the 53 Alderson Reporting Company . We look to see what the political We look to see -. I think.
Many -. you cannot ban handguns. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Do you think there is existing authority with reference to other provisions of 54 Alderson Reporting Company .I have two points I would like to make about that. carry -. One is the analysis the Court used in Heller. what the Court said is: In This is not the time to balance things.there have been local jurisdictions before and there are now ones where they feel allowing some firearms.the word "bear.it has a particular problem. it's just that the end -. FELDMAN: Well.there is a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry. Again. but banning handguns. there may be local -. Now. Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -.generally to carry. it's a city or something like that. but of ban -. But even more than that.Official .of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. is the best way to achieve public safety and to increase the zone of ordered liberty for their people. as the Court did recognize in Heller. And those things would be apparently impermissible under Heller. it's And to someplace that is -. generally." "to keep and bear arms" -.to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello much later.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 same thing with firearms? MR. Heller.
The Court had ample precedent for that. where he says the Fourteenth Amendment stands on its own bottom and it can be either more or less than the provision of the Bill of Rights. what's -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Bill of Rights that would allow us to incorporate just the core of Heller with respect to the States? Just the core of the Second Amendment with respect to the States.I cannot offhand think of a case that would lead you to that.it hasn't even been brought -.the right to have any kind of firearm or the 55 Alderson Reporting Company . JUSTICE STEVENS: If you look to Justice Harlon's dissent in Griswold. MR. I think that there would case do we look to for that proposition? MR.that the City of Chicago is denying people the -. FELDMAN: be -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: And if so. along the lines to this question Justice Stevens was asking earlier? MR. it applies only within the home.what Well.Official . FELDMAN: I think really this -. the case has not been made here -. FELDMAN: And actually the other point I make is if you approach it from the other point of view. and there is no reason in the world why this Court could not adopt the same position here and say: Insofar as incorporated.
what I'd would say is that what I would say is if the Court -. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry. then your CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: answer to Justice Stevens is no. Where do you find the right to self-defense? 56 Alderson Reporting Company .if the Court chooses in an appropriate case to recognize a fundamental right to self-defense. you are not going to follow that approach. that's not a claim that could be made in this case. the Court could address that. it's right there in the Bill of Rights. Well.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right to have any kind of reasonable means of self-defense. JUSTICE SCALIA: See. That's not a claim that has been made in this case. it would then raise those kinds of questions. And someone could make the case that they are being denied any rights of self-defense or any reasonable right to exercise self-defense because of a jurisdiction's firearms regulations. the right to keep and bear arms is right there. right? MR.what I was saying is that if the Court approaches it from the standpoint of perhaps if there is -. FELDMAN: No. Is it the position of the City of Chicago that we should rely on Justice Harlan's dissent in Griswold? MR.Official . FELDMAN: -No.
Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 did. FELDMAN: No. Would you be happy if we JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: incorporated it and said. actually I -. because our history for the last 200 years -. unlikely that the Court would ever be called upon to. MR.not the explicit guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. reasonable regulation is part of the incorporation? And how do we do that? Well. to local threats of violence and so on that occur.Official .you want us to JUSTICE SCALIA: impose that one on the States but not -. MR. That seems very strange. And I don't see any reason to think that there will be a jurisdiction that would try to sufficiently ban firearms that people wouldn't have a reasonable means of self-defense. That's not the question in this case. there is the reasonable MR.I don't want I think it's very to impose that on the States. FELDMAN: Well. the District of Columbia in any event is controlled by Second Amendment as it -­ as it's written. I -­ You -.220 years had been of reasonable State and local regulation of firearms that responds to local conditions. FELDMAN: 57 Alderson Reporting Company . JUSTICE SCALIA: The District of Columbia MR. FELDMAN: Well.
there is an article by Professor Winkler that we cite in our brief that goes very extensively through the ways that State courts have dealt with their own rights to keep and bear arms and have adopted.that the City of Chicago has come up with something that is well within our tradition.Official . it's just our view would be that what Chicago has done here. FELDMAN: Right. FELDMAN: Excuse me.permit you to have long guns but ban handguns. Well. really by overwhelming consensus. which generally recognizes -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought that Heller -- Heller allowed for reasonable regulation.that are most familiar with their own particular needs and their own particular problems. MR. is the kind of regulation that throughout our history jurisdictions in their own -. for accidental death and or suicide -. MR. which is permit you to have a -.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulation standard. that kind of a reasonable regulation standard. I thought that the Heller JUSTICE GINSBURG: decision allowed for reasonable regulation and it gave a few examples as Justice Scalia mentioned.for violence. JUSTICE SCALIA: And -­ What you were urging is 58 Alderson Reporting Company . and in a position to balance the -­ the need for self-defense with the risk to the use of firearms -.
if -. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ALAN GURA ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS MR. Thank you. you are encouraging a broader prohibition at the Federal level. FELDMAN: I -.that this is a national problem. I mean. you have 3 minutes remaining.I think that. you know. To the extent we sever the Federal guarantee from what the States are obliged to comport with. Gura.if you sever the two. one that forbids all sorts of regulations that the Federal Government might otherwise be allowed to do. we encourage a stricter Federal Second Amendment. 59 Alderson Reporting Company . Mr.Heller was very careful not to impose such a broader definition precisely because it realized that -. because it doesn't matter. It shouldn't vary one way or the other with whether there is incorporation against the States. if I may -­ that the restriction that the Second Amendment imposes on the Federal Government should be and is controlled by what the meaning of that Second Amendment was in 1791. the States can take care of it. counsel. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you. GURA: Sure.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really a mixed blessing for gun control advocates. MR.Official . and that's what -.
GURA: Well apart from the Second Amendment right.the Second Amendment out of it. what privileges and immunities are now being denied citizens of -.of the United States? MR.Official .other rights enumerated in the first eight amendments that were thought to be personal guarantees as well as certain unenumerated rights which were understood to be part of -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: What are examples of The jury trial in civil cases? MR. Let's assume the Second Amendment is a wash.at the very outset of your argument Justice Sotomayor asked the question which as I understood it essentially said what are examples of privileges and immunities that are being denied by the States that -. Leaving the Due Process -.the Due Process Clause. at the -. there are other rights -. it's either going to be incorporated or not going to be incorporated to the same extent under either the Privileges and Immunities Clause -. which is being denied to people in the United States by Chicago at least.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those? JUSTICE KENNEDY: Counsel. GURA: The jury trial -­ 60 Alderson Reporting Company .which denial would be remedied by following your proposal to overrule the Slaughter-House case? And let's leave the Second Amendment out.
Official . We're talking That's a criminal case. may not be efficient but it is free. about the Grand Jury Clause. Honor. every State would have to use a grand jury to bring criminal charges. MR. to treat it any differently. JUSTICE GINSBURG: that's quite different. And that every State would have to have a civil jury. else? JUSTICE KENNEDY: And grand jury. Your Those are the only two provisions of the Bill of Rights that have not been held incorporated under due process. we have 28 States right now out of the 50 that allow prosecutors to pursue felony charges without indictment by a grand jury. GURA: There is not much left. for example. GURA: Is that -­ Yes. There is no reason With respect to the unenumerated rights that perhaps are not being -­ JUSTICE GINSBURG: So you are saying that under your view. if any party in the case requested it.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are saying. MR. and as Justice Scalia noted in Apprendi. GURA: That's right. no more information. the right to a jury trial. but the 61 Alderson Reporting Company . well it's not just what we It's what the framers of the Constitution said. What MR. which informs us that perhaps we should have the Second Amendment incorporated.
I'm -. No it does not and it shouldn't trouble the Court because the Court addresses due process cases all the time without saying -­ JUSTICE ALITO: right to contract? MR. GURA: That doesn't trouble you.what are these other unenumerated rights? MR.grand jury indictment and civil trial and jury case. that's it. GURA: JUSTICE KENNEDY: the list -. But you want me to read Well. JUSTICE SCALIA: MR. We know that because in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that's the very first right that they mention as something that people in the South 62 Alderson Reporting Company . But -­ Sure.Official . There's no other -. GURA: The right to contract -­ Isn't that an unenumerated Well. GURA: We can't give a full description of all unenumerated rights that are going to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.we are using MR. doesn't it include the JUSTICE ALITO: right? MR.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other 22 States do require -­ JUSTICE KENNEDY: up your time. GURA: That is literally understood by the framers to be an unenumerated right under the privileged immunities.
perhaps even less. which is that 63 Alderson Reporting Company . But at least we know one thing. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Your approach -­ your original approach would give judges a lot more power and flexibility in determining what rights they think a good idea than they have now with the constraints of the Due Process Clause. Your Honor. GURA: No.that text had a specific understanding and that there are guideposts left behind in texts and history that tell us how to apply it. MR. because it is not limited to procedural -­ where you don't have to deal with the hurdle that it's limited to procedural by the text. because our approach is rooted in text and history. you may.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should be enjoying. MR. unlike the due process. It's not a license for judges to make up unenumerated rights that they believe -­ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Privileges and immunities give you a lot more flexibility than due process. GURA: We believe that it's more limited because that -.Official . our approach might actually provide judges with perhaps no more than what they have now. GURA: Sure. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR. because they were not allowed to pursue a livelihood. If I may? Yes.
counsel. GURA: Thanks.Official . (Whereupon. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: submitted. and if the Court is considering watering down the Second Amendment perhaps it should look to text and history. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR.) 64 Alderson Reporting Company . the case in the above-entitled matter was submitted.m.Subject to Final Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in 1868 the right to keep and bear arms was understood to be a privilege or immunity of citizenship. at 11:16 a. The case is Thank you..
22 38:15 40:14 41:10.19 Alito's 39:1 alliance 21:5 allow 36:10 50:9 55:1 61:24 allowed 58:9.15 57:20 59:4.15 26:23 26:23.5 55:22 56:9 63:3.12.18.24 29:1 30:19 32:7.16 12:18. 1:14 application 3:12 24:22 applications 44:7 applied 20:3 29:2 34:18 47:6 applies 26:14 44:20 55:19 apply 11:24 13:23.12 59:6 63:1 allowing 42:2.17 44:23 badly 5:2 balance 36:24 54:6 58:20 balancing 15:1 Baltimore 30:12 ban 16:6.7 48:12 58:5 advocates 59:1 ae 18:24 ago 7:6 9:23 41:1 agree 17:3 32:2 33:22 34:10 al 1:3.23 51:9 53:11 54:15 56:24 57:4 58:4 64:1 army 27:25 arrive 11:12 article 58:1 articulation 47:15 asked 11:15 34:12 60:2 asking 6:25 12:10 19:4 46:17 55:5 asks 30:24 assembly 21:18 assert 49:17 asserting 50:9 Assistant 1:20 Association 1:18 2:6 17:23 assume 41:24 42:8 43:7 60:9 assuming 6:18 12:8 attacking 4:1 attempt 7:6 authority 53:21 54:25 awful 39:25 a.12.15.16 25:13 26:9.22 13:2 14:20 18:3.10 3:4.18 2:7 17:23 ALAN 1:15 2:3 2:11 3:7 59:23 Alexandria 1:15 ALITO 26:9.15.5.21 63:24 applying 30:24 53:4 Apprendi 61:17 approach 19:24 26:18.9.14.6 argument's 43:7 arms 5:10.17 21:19 22:7.10 51:13 53:1 55:3.10 22:16.20 57:14 58:17 Alderson Reporting Company .12.18.12 36:25 40:25 41:9 44:4 62:16.22 34:13 44:7 45:16.4.13.20 45:20 46:25 51:5.25 12:3 12:5.9.15 12:21 16:8 32:18.13 26:17.m 1:13 3:2 64:9 B back 23:15.16 34:12.19 10:5 12:6.8.13 41:14 42:3.12.16.24 42:12.22 11:16 11:20.8 63:11 approaches 56:12 appropriate 52:17.9.12 19:14..23 5:5 8:23 10:8 ample 53:21 55:20 analog 25:5 analysis 12:10 41:22 54:4 announce 10:24 announced 15:6 answer 6:23.16.17 61:7 62:11 64:3 amendments 5:18 8:13 14:20 21:7.13 23:23 24:11 25:3.11.17 19:4.21 33:3 33:9.Subject to Final Review Page 65 A able 36:8 abortion 20:5 above-entitled 1:11 64:10 abridge 3:22 absence 12:16 absent 5:19 abstract 31:19 45:17 accept 38:23 accepted 7:19 accepting 28:2 access 4:1 accidental 49:12 58:22 account 25:10 accustomed 5:4 achieve 54:10 acquiesced 7:13 Act 8:19 9:10 62:24 activities 15:13 address 47:24 56:20 addressed 51:25 addresses 62:14 addressing 32:11 adopt 10:4 14:1 22:25 55:18 adopted 6:21 20:6.21 23:7.21 25:2 26:21.4.7 4:7 13:7 17:21 23:21 28:22 36:13 38:10 40:1 41:1.25 21:3.25 46:1 46:4 50:14 59:23 60:2 arguments 35:25 36:1.12.24 8:3 34:25 39:1 45:4 56:8 answered 38:22 44:1.19 30:3 44:5.10 39:16 43:17 44:11.Official .24 answering 8:5 47:19 apart 60:16 apparent 19:25 apparently 54:12 appeals 8:2 APPEARAN.17 60:8.20 9:24.20 6:6.21 51:18 51:18 54:6.6.25 10:1 10:15.12.13 45:9 45:22..23 22:6 23:10 27:15 28:18 30:14.20 56:14 appropriately 13:13 arbitrary 37:7 38:6 area 14:21 47:20 argue 7:8 argued 7:18 42:20 arguing 7:11 40:20 47:4 argument 1:12 2:2.3 50:5 52:19 54:9 allows 24:17 altered 36:23 ambiguous 48:20 amendment 4:3 5:11.19 36:2.18 53:2 53:4 60:20 Amendment's 25:18 54:14 American 3:19 3:19.12 32:15.7 37:1 37:21 41:2 50:21.13 44:18.23 43:12 43:14 48:14.4 42:11.
7.18 23:9 23:15 26:14 29:8 30:14.17 Breyer's 44:24 brief 10:7 28:2 58:2 briefly 28:5 briefs 14:11 37:11 bring 6:6.21 Benton 10:7 best 30:3 45:9 53:15 54:10 better 9:22 15:25 beyond 8:12 36:4 big 4:9 14:21 Bill 18:19 20:14 20:18.2 clearly 8:11 Clement 1:17 2:5 14:6 17:20 17:21.21.15 56:24 57:4 58:4 64:1 began 41:10 beginning 34:21 behalf 1:15.19 60:14 citizenship 3:20 3:23 8:7.9 24:24 25:22 26:7.Subject to Final Review Page 66 banned 39:4 50:25 51:3 52:1.20 barring 51:7 Barron 30:11 based 4:22 7:17 38:6 basic 10:18.24 30:12 37:11 51:19 31:16 32:5 52:21 53:8.5 changed 36:23 16:23 22:9 character 32:17 36:8 52:17 charges 61:12 54:15.7 13:1 25:22 61:12 broad 18:14 52:19 broader 24:20 59:9.12.16 27:12.19 11:18 12:4.23 care 59:7 27:23 careful 59:11 challenge 39:4 Carolene 17:14 challenging 13:9 carriage 52:19 13:11 carry 4:9 15:4.19 29:18 37:17 53:3 bear 5:10.17 44:23 45:6.14.7 38:19 47:9 53:24 60:12.7 banning 15:18 49:16.20 22:2 25:18 basically 18:21 27:15 basis 16:14.24 Chicago's 3:11 19:4.19 10:5 32:18.22 35:25 37:6.22 38:15 40:14 41:10.21 33:17.17 16:3 26:20 27:18.20 46:15 47:22 62:7 64:7.9 15:8.22.25 19:13 20:9.21 34:20 35:4.23 60:18 15:23 18:3.14 43:11.12.17 24:12 45:19 48:19 Black 26:8 Blackstone 27:24 28:9.7 14:15 18:12 children 9:18 19:5.24 46:3 60:7 61:14.19 61:25 54:20 chart 43:10.23 21:22 64:2 city 1:6 3:5 15:20.24 63:20 64:5.16 28:16 Blackstone's 28:8 blessing 59:1 blocking 4:1 bootstrap 5:5 bottom 55:15 bound 13:19 boundaries 15:13.4 20:24 Chief 3:3.24 chose 34:7 31:10 60:24 Circuit 7:18.16 22:12 23:10 17:19.17 46:5 46:12.21 choice 16:2 22:24 23:25 choose 45:16 25:19 26:4 chooses 56:14 29:21.6 29:19.10 33:7 35:22 54:16 55:9.11 36:6 39:25 55:23 56:14.22 60:21 certainly 19:16 C 19:19 22:8 C 2:1 3:1 25:3 37:9 called 57:8 47:18 49:16 candid 22:24 cetera 19:23.16 56:24 61:4 binds 44:18 bit 18:14.9 51:11 56:3.20 16:4 16:7 54:23 55:24 56:4 58:23 civil 3:25 4:20 8:19 9:10 33:6 60:24 61:13 62:6.7 cases 4:7.7.13 carrying 22:11 43:15 46:6 22:11 51:7 Chicago 1:6 3:5 52:8 14:12 15:18 case 3:4 4:13 55:24 56:4 11:13 14:24 58:15.9 4:6 21:2.25 18:8 18:16.12.23 30:1 28:19.25 24:17 24:7 27:20 24:25 28:4.2.20 28:6 28:20 30:7 close 37:10 51:20 clue 35:9 Alderson Reporting Company .21 2:4.3.15 Bowie 51:8 Breyer 14:4.11 56:21.10.16 30:24 32:19 33:5 34:21.6.2.12 61:23 63:7 clear 47:1.8 35:11 43:6 44:5.18 53:19 55:1.15.14 6:17 13:12.22 57:21 45:14.19 12:23 13:8.12 3:8 17:22 28:23 59:24 believe 13:12 29:16 48:12 63:13.8.25 24:1.21 59:21 63:3.19 62:15 11:10 categories 8:16 cite 58:2 caused 4:18 cited 22:4 central 43:4 citizens 3:19 5:5 century 27:24 burglars 43:15 43:22 9:18.12 18:4 19:19 21:14 23:8 24:3.17.9.22 50:4 54:9.17.5 26:25 27:15.11 brought 55:24 bucking 7:3 burden 4:9 7:11 Bureau 4:2 burglar 27:4 certain 4:20 9:22.14 48:14 48:23 53:11 54:14.24 civilized 10:11 claim 8:16 56:21 56:22 clarify 5:8 clarity 15:11 class 50:5 clause 4:23 5:25 6:2.Official .
20.17 deny 37:18 denying 55:24 depend 21:23 depriving 42:11 descendants 3:18 describes 30:3 description 62:9 designed 29:9 detail 26:3 D determine 17:4 D 1:17 2:5 3:1 24:18.7.23 35:18 35:19 36:18 39:21.11 52:7.20.17 10:7 11:12 13:10.9 decisis 4:12 declaring 5:21 defeated 42:2 definition 6:19 10:19 22:1 59:11 DeJonge 21:19 22:3 demand 20:6 denial 60:5 denied 56:17 60:5.17 40:4 40:4.Official .7 21:17 22:15.14 17:13 18:1.23 21:4 23:18 31:10 61:12.9 confronts 25:4 confusion 22:16 Congress 8:21 8:21 connection 48:25 conscience 11:4 consensus 4:14 49:25 50:18 58:5 consequence 13:25 14:1 22:8.3 corner 35:11 corporation 1:20 29:22 correct 5:14 11:9 16:16 39:13 40:19 41:8 correctly 4:15 counsel 1:21 17:19 46:17 59:21 60:1 64:5 countries 31:9 37:23 country 9:21 10:10 12:20 29:5 31:21 38:1 52:16 counts 23:6 couple 48:23 course 4:6 20:17 20:18 court 1:1.12 29:19 52:6.23 8:1.20 57:8 62:14.21 22:4 cultures 53:13 currently 48:13 deals 42:20 dealt 23:8 58:4 death 49:13 58:22 debates 20:11 decide 14:24 15:23.8 41:3.13 40:17 colonies 48:10 Columbia 57:17 57:19 come 19:6 24:21 27:16 28:15 37:10 58:23 comes 18:22 19:8 20:12 comment 18:9 common 16:8 39:16..11.24 constitutionally 41:17 constitutions 48:13 49:3 50:18 Constitution's 3:14 constraints 63:7 construed 54:13 contemporane.24 16:24 decided 4:15 10:8 13:13 14:17.14 30:8 31:4.22 44:18 44:22 46:21.21 19:17 19:19 21:2. 9:3 content 36:3 context 12:24 36:7 47:23 contract 9:15 62:17.17 decision 4:10 11:11 15:7 22:15 27:14 28:9.21 30:4.23 41:6 41:11 42:14 43:4 44:2 47:13 conception 5:8 5:22 concern 40:5 43:2 53:5 concerned 28:10 33:19 conclusion 27:17 28:15 concrete 8:15 condition 31:2 conditions 50:20 52:14 53:13 57:11 conduct 20:4 confessed 16:12 confession 16:13 confront 25:5.18 compare 23:12 complete 24:14 completely 26:13 37:1 41:3 44:9 comport 59:3 concealed 16:23 36:8 54:19 conceivable 43:17 concept 12:25 29:3.Subject to Final Review Page 67 codification 33:24 40:9 codified 12:18 33:17 39:20 40:5.12.19 55:18 55:20 56:11.16 7:20.24 23:8 25:14 27:14 28:7.25 29:11.18 contracts 8:24 contrary 4:7 7:10 control 59:1 controlled 53:12 57:20 59:16 convey 9:1 core 13:23 15:13 55:2.14.20 crucial 34:5 Cruel 53:23 Cruikshank 21:15.19 21:13 24:13 54:16 covered 13:2 crime 16:12 49:12 criminal 18:12 20:23.13 4:22 7:16.12 56:13.23 58:12 decisions 7:25 13:1 44:10.25 44:16 47:18 48:16 49:1 50:6 51:12.16 43:25.2 17:15 21:24 22:3 30:25 34:2.13 38:16.14 64:3 courts 50:1 58:3 court's 3:14 7:25 15:6 18:2 19:20 20:13.11.23 31:18 32:10 35:24 38:11.9 consider 10:9 considered 9:17 9:19 considering 64:3 consists 40:18 40:20 Constitution 3:21 16:1.24 47:3 48:11 53:19 61:16 constitutional 4:16 5:6 16:20 16:21 17:12 23:16 39:6 49:20..23 17:21 determined dangerous 16:12 50:19 38:9 determines darling 7:9 35:24 deal 16:25 63:17 Alderson Reporting Company .21 39:11 39:14.12 3:10 4:13.17 54:4 54:5.
14.25 fair 53:7 50:10.13 6:20 easy 9:2 effect 4:12 effectively 21:2 36:20 efficient 61:18 effort 24:22 eight 5:17 8:13 60:19 either 14:5 20:8 34:5.22.23 excludes 49:16 exclusionary 25:16.4 faculty 7:3 48:16 49:18.25 38:4.17.20 2:3.19 41:8 face 41:24 47:1 41:12.7 discussion 20:16 disputes 14:15 dissent 55:14 56:5 dissenters 11:11 dissenter's 15:11 dissenting 15:9 distinction 53:1 distinguishing 32:3 District 57:17 57:19 divergence 16:25 doctrine 20:13 47:8.20 31:17.13 36:5.13.10 34:7 35:14 49:9 differences 28:2 different 7:22 14:7 20:18 25:10 27:2.24 faithful 3:12 51:2.22 28:24 29:16.8 43:3 essentially 21:8 60:3 established 6:8 et 1:3.21 59:2 60:11 extremely 4:14 7:16 33:11 features 29:9 49:10 Federal 13:22 14:18 15:1.4.20 30:5.24 35:3.9.8 6:12 7:2.25 30:16 34:10 58:10.19 40:22 felony 61:24 48:21 53:9 Fifth 44:12 favor 14:24 23:6 find 9:2 16:20 36:2 56:25 favorable 22:4 finding 44:21 favored 20:14 fine 50:23 20:20 finish 8:4 28:14 feature 40:24 Alderson Reporting Company .10 32:25 33:13 34:1.23 27:23 event 19:15 38:11 57:20 evidence 8:25 28:17 48:19 exact 22:6 25:5 exactly 23:19.5 59:10.10 far 18:18 25:10 57:1.12.C 1:8.Official .8.1 earlier 23:16 55:5 easier 6:6.12 18:4 19:7.17 E E 2:1 3:1.22 34:5 37:10 46:1.12.18.20 39:2.20 43:1 47:7.21 26:22 27:9.12 37:3 37:19.16 feel 54:9 Feldman 1:20 2:8 28:21.11 20:7 22:20.15 38:18.Subject to Final Review Page 68 determining 63:5 develop 22:18 22:20 difference 12:21 18:13 26:20.23 44:18 59:2.13 61:5 62:14 63:7.11 23:7 24:4 30:24 35:24 37:6.15 doctrines 3:12 doing 23:7 37:25 domestic 14:15 draw 36:23 drawn 36:24 47:12 due 3:12 6:1.14 59:14 36:14.25 17:12 22:14 43:23 44:15 23:11 28:16 45:3.3 15:5 18:11.17 52:1.7.19 12:9 13:7.10.6.5 familiar 58:19 54:2 55:6.8.17 48:2.5.11 essential 3:13 12:25 32:1.10 family 3:18 55:21 56:6.12.15.18 2:7 17:23 19:23.21 disarmed 39:23 disarming 33:20 discrete 53:6 discussed 48:5.10.24 Duncan 31:18 dwell 21:11 dwelled 28:16 D.9 50:13 55:16 60:9.18 20:3.11 elaborated 13:24 31:18 Eleven 48:10 eliminate 52:10 embedded 31:13 embodied 50:17 embrace 8:7 enacted 8:20 encourage 59:3 encouraging 59:9 enforce 3:21 8:24 36:10 40:13 England 10:13 31:10 32:9 English 23:15 Engraving 4:2 enjoying 63:1 enshrined 3:20 entire 11:25 entirely 49:16 49:23 entitled 17:15 enumerated 8:5 17:15 60:19 envision 5:11 Equal 37:6 especially 4:15 36:21 ESQ 1:15.6.19.10.23 42:5 fact 9:23 11:22 42:7.3.17 7:19 11:8.25 23:1 24:20 25:4 33:19 34:11 39:23 40:6 42:4.17 61:21 differently 61:8 difficult 22:18 22:20 30:13 53:14 dimensions 5:17 direction 37:12 directly 30:21 disagreed 30:17 disagreement 16:10 disarm 40:7 43:19.19 41:4 47:8 60:12.10.17 excuse 45:3 58:10 exercise 41:18 41:20 56:18 exercising 39:8 existence 21:24 existing 18:2 54:25 explained 15:9 15:10 17:13 explicit 57:4 expression 10:17 26:23 extensively 58:3 extent 10:24 43:19.14 40:3 F 40:15.17 34:11 42:21 46:23 49:1 50:2.17 34:17 example 8:18 10:13 61:18 examples 8:15 58:13 60:4.15.7 31:11 32:2.10 31:5.4.
12 29:11 32:7.20 39:5 41:2 48:18 49:10 50:9.4 38:12 39:4.21 12:5 12:15 13:6.14 58:22 first 3:4 8:13 9:23 10:15 13:2 14:20 18:5 19:9.12 15:24 16:7.11 26:16 30:6 35:23 53:7 56:8 60:10.13.13 5:23 6:5.4 10:11.3.12 16:23.21 64:6 H handguns 15:18 51:18.25 28:17 51:5 63:6 goodness 31:6 government 4:5 13:22 20:7 24:20 25:4 33:3.11.13.9 11:14.19 36:16 40:6.21.10 35:15 39:12 42:15 43:3 47:5.25 61:3 61:15.25 62:6 great 4:14 9:20 15:9 16:25 greater 9:21 17:15 Griswold 30:1 55:14 56:5 grown 5:4 guarantee 3:20 19:15 23:1.11 59:22.7.24 40:7 41:2 42:4.2 28:17 31:1 32:17.21 11:6.24 function 40:12 40:12 fundamental 4:4 18:6 22:1.22 43:11 45:5.18.7 38:8 58:16 Gura 1:15 2:3 2:11 3:6.9.13 5:16 7:23 8:9 8:10 9:4.10 47:11.9 52:15 52:15.20 54:1.10 46:10.16 44:11 60:19 62:24 flexibility 63:5 63:15 focus 31:18 42:19 focused 28:7 follow 14:1 56:9 followed 26:3 following 31:11 60:6 footnote 17:13 17:14 forbids 59:4 force 4:16 42:22 form 43:20 formulas 42:15 forth 19:9 fought 3:25 found 4:13 52:18.14 10:2.21 four 48:24 Fourteenth 4:3 10:22 12:12 23:23 30:19 51:5 55:15 62:11 Fourth 9:25 18:5 19:4.23 27:6 34:16.12.16 17:3.11 61:10 61:20 gist 20:12 give 5:23 6:18 8:24 31:9.11 48:1 48:15 49:5 56:15 G G 3:1 generalities 30:22 generally 48:15 52:11.8 15:5.25 5:3.23.23.23 44:19 59:5.7.25 60:16.17 25:18 44:11 framers 5:14 8:11 10:25 16:1 30:21 32:14 33:11.22 62:4 62:9.16 21:6.11 14:13 27:4 59:1 guns 12:14 14:12.1.16 governments 25:5 29:4 36:14 grand 4:19 33:5 61:1.13 6:22 7:5.25 39:5 giving 9:21 41:18 gloss 24:4 Glucksberg 11:13 20:15 29:23 go 19:21 25:13 26:9.23 33:5.21 23:12 25:3.14 26:17.25 52:2 54:6.25 15:1 16:5.8.21 63:8.8.10.2 23:14 25:18 48:11 49:20 57:4 59:2 guaranteed 3:24 8:13 18:7 guarantees 4:5 19:16 23:9 60:20 guess 18:25 20:2 20:2.15 given 27:13 32:7 36:7 38:24.23.9 56:19 57:11.16 11:15 58:8.18.22 14:23 31:20 61:19 freedom 49:5 freedoms 49:6 free-flowing 10:23 friends 10:10 51:16 full 5:24 62:9 fully 9:20.20 48:6 53:9 61:16 62:22 France 32:9 free 4:4 10:4.11.8 47:3 48:17 49:2 50:7 51:1 51:17.Official .Subject to Final Review Page 69 firearm 41:5 50:6 55:25 firearms 4:22 29:5.12.13.11 59:10 henceforth 3:19 10:8 hereditary Alderson Reporting Company .15 39:17 40:1.17.11 32:23 33:8.14 36:4 39:12.9.18 10:20 14:21.20 34:11 37:1.9 4:11.14 33:23 35:6.15 8:8 8:11 9:7.9 58:17 happens 11:7 happy 7:16 57:22 hard 27:6 Harlan 26:1.13.10 35:8 43:10 62:9 63:4.19.17 10:6.24 25:3 25:8.10 62:10 good 21:16.13.14 54:17 54:21 58:7 Ginsburg 5:7.19.9 14:3.8.14 23:12 25:15.25 54:4 54:5.18.23.7 26:18 29:25 Harlan's 26:13 56:5 Harlon's 55:14 Harvard 27:23 hear 3:3 heard 40:1 heavy 4:9 held 30:11 34:18 39:15 41:5 61:5 Heller 15:7.24.22.17 27:8 28:1 41:22 43:17 48:8 51:7 goes 28:11 34:11 36:19 58:2 going 15:4 21:13 22:17.25 17:13 22:12 27:14 28:3.19.25 51:3.10 24:10 27:12 34:25 guideposts 6:4 11:2 63:23 gun 12:1.10 35:16 37:2.20 55:2 58:8.
9 job 11:5 46:13 15:8.23 28:22 43:10 12:8.24 7:8.8.7 59:11 imposed 39:19 imposes 50:3 59:15 impossible 5:23 6:1 include 4:4 49:3 62:16 included 5:10.7 highly 14:16 33:22 53:6 hills 15:19 historical 6:3 historically 12:20 history 6:14 10:8 23:16 26:6 36:22 47:19.16.18 17:6 Johnson's 8:22 17:9.5 24:10.22 36:6 56:19 36:25 37:14.20.15 51:13 57:24 59:19 increase 54:10 indictment 61:25 62:6 individual 32:22 information 61:12 informs 61:6 inherit 8:25 injure 29:9 insofar 43:11.12.19.10 9:4 9:11.8.16.9 25:21.24 19:17 21:8 24:19.10 24:3.25 52:14.12.14.3.25 invalid 51:18 62:6.4 18:20.9 46:19 16:16.23.25 jot 18:10 18:8.6 53:4 incorporation 13:19 14:16 18:14 19:5 20:13.6.15 26:11 36:1 47:8.12.19.17.23 25:1 25:14 27:1 29:2 34:14.6 14:18 15:1.9 judgment 3:14 26:12.7 James 1:20 2:8 11:14.25 jurisdiction 52:8 30:6.24 18:13 29:12.21.12 intruders 12:2 61:13.8.22 44:3.7.14 62:23 63:15 immunity 64:2 impermissible 54:12 implicit 29:3.18 35:24 43:18.18 5:19 includes 49:22 including 14:13 14:14 inclusion 33:15 33:16 34:1 incorporate 25:16.15 jurisprudence 37:17.21 58:18 34:25 35:2.17.15 22:9 40:10.14 10:2 J 10:16 11:3.22 Alderson Reporting Company .8.7 incorporates 18:10 51:13 incorporating 4:22 18:3 19:20 21:16.20 54:8.Official .22.17 16:3.15 22:5 22:14.4.23 47:10.23 Judge 11:9 19:3 20:2.25 interpreting 33:5.13 30:8 31:4 32:13 41:6.7 interests 24:20 24:12.25 22:17.25 21:9.21 5:25 6:3.19.18.23 24:2 24:3.22 38:2.16 51:18 holding 51:19 home 12:2.12.3.22 53:16 54:18 57:9 58:18 63:11.15 interpret 13:21 25:9.7.10.18.20 judicial 52:9 27:18.7 63:4.7 involving 19:5 justice 3:3.6 60:24 50:1 60:25 61:1.25 63:12 26:3.21.16 33:7 52:18.25 33:25 34:3.17.23 interpretation 47:14 14:2 jury 18:12 20:23 interpretations 20:23 21:4 44:13 23:18 25:24 interpreted 27:3 31:4.13 51:24.10 61:5.24.13 35:16 42:10 43:12 impose 32:15 33:2 53:22 57:3.7.13.18 23:2.20 judges 10:23 23:17 24:1.23 7:10 18:2.11 42:14 44:1 importance 11:24 35:16 43:9 important 10:9 13:18 17:4 26:6 30:14 32:12 33:11.12 53:3 53:20 55:19 57:23 60:10.24 64:4 hold 8:25 9:16 41:3.16 52:11 57:14 31:3.8 jurisdiction's 35:11.16 jurisdictions 32:5.21.21 28:4 juries 4:19 28:6.8.Subject to Final Review Page 70 10:14 high 4:1 43:13 46:6.23 13:8 Japan 31:20 13:16 14:4.14 55:19 instances 20:8 instruments 49:12 intended 52:10 interesting 21:1 25:25 23:3.6.9 4:6 issue 17:12 4:17 5:1.9 46:8.18 27:7 27:11 36:9 48:3 55:1 incorporated 12:25 13:3.9.9.13 36:15 5:16 6:5.7.7.11 6:19 8:6 11:17 14:2 21:14 60:4.15.24 19:20 20:1 39:1.9.25 17:6.13.15 items 49:13 7:23 8:9.24.25 52:2 55:20 homeowner's 12:1 homosexual 20:4 Honor 4:11 11:21 14:3 17:3 20:9 29:17 61:4 63:8 honored 4:4 horses 42:16 human 14:25 15:20 hundred 15:20 15:22 hundreds 14:13 16:5 hunting 15:19 hurdle 63:17 I idea 63:6 identical 12:17 identify 4:24 ILLINOIS 1:6 illustration 24:16 25:14 imaginary 43:9 immunities 3:22 4:23 5:9.16 issues 25:7 6:22.
15 late 30:20 50:20 latitude 53:21 lightly 24:4 Laughter 7:4.13.9 level 9:21 10:12 36:22 59:10 liberty 5:2 12:4 12:11 13:1 19:8.8.11.15.14 54:7 41:21 48:22 let's 25:22 41:24 50:5 55:25 56:1 58:6.13.10.18 mean 5:17 7:2 10:3 13:3 16:23 19:1 24:3.7 16:23 58:13 militia 32:19 33:20 34:21 39:23 40:7 42:1.19 43:6 44:4.19 50:8.24 46:3 46:5.13 56:3 56:5.16 27:12 28:7 36:9 38:20 54:15 59:8 meaning 4:18 32:21 38:18 39:17 59:17 meanings 39:15 39:18 means 39:8 41:18.Subject to Final Review Page 71 41:9.23 51:1.5 17:11 49:7.14.5 9:19 63:16.7 Justice's 13:17 justify 23:23 42:19 43:8 60:8.17.23 37:1 Kennedy's 18:9 legislatures 37:3 38:12 kill 29:9 37:20 14:17 15:2 39:4 41:2 killed 14:12 17:10 52:13.23 51:5 52:5.17 Marshall 30:13 Maryland 10:7 matter 1:11 4:16 14:16 15:23 16:4.19 63:3.17.12.11 42:14 43:4.21 10:5 12:1.17 19:18 29:4.23.1 14:13 19:22 line 20:22 47:12 38:15 41:10.7 13:13 light 27:2.9 43:13.10.23 44:24 45:6.17 47:7.17 kinds 50:21.8.24 19:7 14:25 15:1 large 9:5.22 50:24 51:3 56:16 knives 51:8 know 5:18 6:18 7:2 14:11 16:22 18:19 24:2 25:7 30:16 36:15 37:8 40:22 45:11 53:9 59:8 62:23 63:25 54:8 57:10.12 21:2 27:22 lines 55:4 41:14 48:22 43:19 list 5:24 62:6 53:10 54:15 laws 16:23 51:20 listed 8:23 56:23 57:4 lead 55:11 literally 11:1 58:4 64:1 lease 8:25 15:15 20:21 keeping 18:11 leave 36:16.19.1.23 42:6.18 maintaining 43:12 majority 26:4 28:9 making 13:7 36:13 45:23 46:1 mandates 3:16 Mapp 18:25 19:3.11.10 61:17.3.7.13 64:4 looked 30:8 47:18 looking 15:24 lords 10:14 losing 40:2 lot 10:4 14:22 16:9 22:11 31:8 40:1 63:4 63:15 lots 14:14 low 43:15 lower 3:14 7:16 M Madison 43:10 46:13.16.15 44:2 44:14 45:17 47:13 54:11 L license 10:23 label 33:10 63:12 language 8:12 life 14:23.8 42:16.23 61:1 legislature 17:2 local 29:4 36:13 62:2.22 48:3 48:10 49:15.20 militia's 42:3.8 55:13.Official .2 60:23 61:1.14 limit 31:24 35:1 limitation 39:19 K law 3:21 4:8 6:8 limited 12:6 keep 5:10.9 43:13 48:25 militias 43:2.4 42:23 militia-related 26:25 Miller 22:15 million 14:12 mind 18:11 minimum 16:20 minority 53:6 Alderson Reporting Company .11.20 64:5.12.18.6 53:24 53:25 55:9.23 53:13 kind 8:1 25:19 lesser 13:4 53:13.24 left 7:5 11:2 61:3 livelihood 63:2 39:9 53:18 63:23 lives 15:21 16:5 54:24 55:8 legislation 8:20 16:11 60:1.17 62:21 KENNEDY 40:23 60:8 little 33:23 13:16 29:25 Leaving 60:12 35:19 40:9 30:6 32:16 led 37:25 45:19 48:19 37:15 38:17.24 52:3 53:18 54:24 55:4.22 58:8.5.4 24:16 25:13 29:23 March 1:9 married 9:14.11 15:18 31:14 39:15 43:24 44:10 46:6 47:23.11 45:14.14 30:9 31:4.19 31:20 33:12 35:11 37:16 38:18 41:6.21 36:21.20 62:2 62:5.19 56:1 57:15 meant 8:12 33:12 measure 17:16 member 26:6 39:11 mention 62:25 mentioned 8:19 10:6.24 59:6 64:10 McDonald 1:3 3:4.23 57:2.25 59:21 60:1.11 57:11 locus 29:5 logic 22:6 logical 22:8 London 27:23 long 15:14 28:11 50:5 54:18 58:16 look 14:10.18 7:1.
24 49:4 51:8 55:21.5 permit 58:16.22 ordered 5:2 12:25 29:3.22 Alderson Reporting Company .9 43:13.16 permitting 20:4 20:5 personal 4:5 9:1 60:20 petition 21:18 Petitioners 1:4 1:16.5 47:2 opportunity 8:4 opposed 19:6 34:8 opposite 37:12 oral 1:11 2:2 3:7 17:21 28:22 order 39:22.1 3:1 nation 3:17 9:11 9:15 national 1:18 2:6 17:22 21:22 25:8 59:13 natural 10:17 necessarily 10:23 18:10 51:22 53:14 necessary 31:1 necessity 20:4.21 47:4 54:11 55:24 57:15 60:17 62:25 perfect 24:16 perfectly 38:3 51:12 period 25:25 51:4.Official .20 37:20 40:14 42:11.13 40:21 44:8.15 44:2 44:14 45:17 47:13 54:11 ordinances 3:11 original 6:14 63:4 origins 23:14 OTIS 1:3 ought 4:10 outlier 18:18 24:12 outlined 44:6 outset 60:2 outside 12:6 15:19 overrule 4:10 6:25 60:6 overseas 10:10 overturn 7:24 overwhelming 49:25 50:18 58:5 O'Scanlon 11:10 P P 3:1 PAGE 2:2 Palko 29:19 parade 12:14 paradigm 17:14 parks 25:8 parliament 10:14 27:25 part 12:21 15:15 38:18 43:17.18 43:20 45:16.7 49:13 53:16 57:23 60:22 particular 31:13 31:15 50:4.11 6:19 8:6 11:17 14:1 21:14.11 42:14 43:4.21 5:25 6:2.17 40:4.25 43:1 43:19.11.19 31:20 41:6.24 46:3 once 24:18 ones 34:8 54:8 open 54:20 operates 31:14 operative 27:15 opinion 15:2 16:17 29:13 30:1 39:11.17 36:21 40:23 52:24.20 45:20 46:7.20 Parties 8:24 parts 24:23 party 13:10 61:14 passed 30:19 51:20 pass-through 8:1 PAUL 1:17 2:5 17:21 penny 25:20 people 3:15 4:1 9:20 10:21 11:4 12:19 14:12 15:14 16:12 18:7 23:14 32:20.14 30:9 31:4.Subject to Final Review Page 72 minute 41:1 minutes 59:22 Miranda 16:10 misunderstood 13:17 mixed 59:1 moment 21:11 monarchy 10:14 money 4:20 morning 3:4 Muscarello 54:16 N N 2:1.7.10 piece 8:20 pistols 51:8 place 7:3 21:1 places 51:22 52:17 plain 3:14 please 3:10 18:1 28:25 Poe 30:2 point 11:12 35:12 38:11.5 need 39:22 44:21 58:21 needed 9:8 needs 58:19 neither 12:6 never 20:21 38:16.22 44:1 New 13:3 19:22 nice 29:14 Ninth 11:10 non-unanimous 18:13 20:23 Nordyke 11:10 noted 29:11 61:17 noting 28:14 notion 10:3 33:9 45:17 nullity 49:23 number 26:4 29:21 numerous 51:6 O O 2:1 3:1 obliged 59:3 observed 11:10 obviously 28:7 occur 57:12 offhand 55:11 okay 14:4 38:3 45:13.16 preexisting 18:6 21:23 23:15 39:19 prefatory 27:16 prerogative 7:24 President 8:22 pretty 21:25 27:6 prevent 43:19 previously 33:22 primarily 9:9 27:25 28:10 primary 7:20 29:5 42:13 47:4 Princeton 27:23 principles 10:3 Printing 4:2 prior 7:1 privilege 64:2 privileged 62:23 privileges 3:22 4:23 5:9.25 53:7 53:24 population 9:5.7 portion 9:5 pose 52:16 position 12:24 20:15.19 2:4.4 54:22 58:19.7 2:12 3:8 17:24 59:24 phrase 32:19 pick 45:16 picks 19:9.22 points 22:13 49:9 54:3 policy 16:2 political 35:21 35:23 36:14.21 26:1 36:25 39:10 45:15 55:18 56:4 58:20 possession 51:8 possible 43:24 possibly 48:19 posture 7:22 pound 25:20 power 63:5 precedent 21:16 21:17 22:4 55:20 precisely 19:12 23:24 59:12 preexisted 22:2 33:15.
21 48:6.Official .11.17 41:25 45:9 47:3.8.16 53:23 proposal 60:6 proposition 15:12 55:9 proscribe 49:8 49:22 prosecutors 61:24 protect 9:20 11:24 39:22 43:2 53:15 protected 5:25 10:9 11:17.16.23 58:1 58:6.21.2 43:12 49:19 purposes 12:9 27:9 pursue 61:24 63:2 put 24:4 33:18 34:4.6 50:2 53:19 54:25 61:4 public 5:14 6:14 32:20 53:15 54:10 Punishment 53:24 purchase 8:25 purpose 35:5.4 55:17 57:13 61:7 reasonable 39:8 50:3 51:15.8 34:20 refine 45:19 34:22 62:5 refinements real 9:1 13:20 realized 59:12 regard 18:12 really 8:3 13:15 20:3 23:2.15 38:19 40:23 41:4 47:8 52:24.9.11 23:7 24:5 30:24 35:21.19 12:10 13:7.20 49:7.21 30:11.2 50:7 ratified 3:15 52:17 10:22 30:20 recognizes 58:7 33:3 recognizing ratifiers 11:1 24:19 rationale 32:17 reconsider reach 7:1 13:14 21:14 read 20:19.19 32:7 38:25 45:12 46:10.10 25:11 regarded 44:8 44:16 48:25 regulated 36:20 49:3 55:10 regulating 4:21 58:5 59:1 regulation 29:5 reason 3:13 36:2.19 33:17 49:22 50:3 Q 33:18.25 60:12 60:13 61:6 62:15 63:7.21 21:18 religion 49:6 rely 56:4 relying 47:14 remainder 17:17 remaining 59:22 remarkably 18:4 remedied 60:6 remedy 4:18 repeating 39:9 requested 61:14 require 62:1 requirement 49:24 reserve 17:17 resolve 16:14 resolved 16:19 respect 6:2.18 57:10.6 21:3 31:12.12 reasonably 41:20 52:19 reasoned 38:6 reasons 27:7.15 21:4.4.21 10:12 13:6 17:11.17 7:19 11:8.17 38:8 Alderson Reporting Company question 8:4 11:15 13:17.19 46:11 40:5.9.13 quite 22:24 37:12 48:25 61:21 quote 33:23 40:8 57:10.19 reference 13:19 27:22 28:9 54:25 33:8.21 37:6.23.13.12 18:4 19:7.12.23 13:14 21:20.6 49:4 rebuttal 2:10 17:18 59:23 recognition 48:22 R recognize 48:24 R 3:1 54:20 56:14 raise 27:25 37:4 recognized 39:5 56:15 33:22 41:13 rank 44:13 49:1.7 27:2 32:9 34:13 42:10 44:7 53:10 55:2.18 18:9 32:10 33:1.6 41:25 42:1.18 12:11 15:16 16:8 41:17 43:5 62:11 protection 9:9 9:21 10:15 37:7 48:13 protects 18:6 29:3 provide 63:9 provision 8:17 18:24 29:8 55:16 provisions 18:18 18:19 20:14 25:12 37:7 49:3.7.25 45:4 46:22.11.20.13 63:16 63:18 process 3:12 6:1 6:12 7:12.23 47:19 47:24 55:4 57:21 60:3 questions 16:14 37:5 38:5 53:15 56:16 quibble 19:2.25 36:14.16 53:22 56:1.5 40:23 41:17 43:25 44:1.11.15.22 47:2 promise 3:17 property 9:1.22 39:1.17 regulations 51:7 51:15 53:22 56:20 59:5 rejected 10:5 relationship 38:14 release 16:11 relevant 37:9 47:20 relied 4:19.16 18:17 19:15 20:5.20.3 61:8 respected 9:24 9:25 respecting 53:22 53:23 respond 28:4 Respondents .25 53:8.4 34:12 37:5 38:14.16 63:25 processes 50:20 Products 17:14 Professor 58:1 professoriate 7:9 professors 27:22 prohibited 39:7 prohibition 59:9 prologue 42:9 42:10.17.22 46:24 47:3 putting 24:11 35:5.17 36:18 46:21.14 63:14 probably 12:17 19:24 problem 54:22 59:13 problems 58:20 procedural 19:3 19:6.25 58:6.18 20:3.18 34:3 52:15 54:19 qualifying 32:19 34:15.Subject to Final Review Page 73 60:4.23.
9 62:8.23 23:9.10.18 32:22 33:1.18.19 9:2.19 21:3.8 40:25 53:24.15..Subject to Final Review Page 74 1:17.13 27:8 29:1 32:7 32:12.23 38:2.9.20.14.20 9:24 11:16.9.25 21:6 21:12.15 31:17.12 18:6 18:11 20:9 21:4.25 61:17 62:12 school 7:3.24.25 24:11 37:11 40:2 similar 26:19 41:16 similarity 21:6 simpler 3:13 4:8 simply 4:15 28:14 44:25 sit 20:20 situation 25:6 situations 25:4 Sixth 18:17 21:3 24:11 44:12 Slaughter-Ho.18 56:23.16 51:2 53:10.7 rooted 11:4 63:11 rule 16:10 20:6 25:16.12 15:18.24.5.24 9:25 10:1.19.17.15 19:10 19:12.18.21 33:3.8.4 23:18 24:9.25 32:3.9.22 18:3 18:5.8.23 14:7 15:14.21.17 58:13.24 46:3.7.23 39:3.10.20 43:11 43:14 45:7 47:1.13 53:1 54:14 55:3 57:20 59:4.15.6.18 31:3.16 34:12 36:2.22.6.13 12:13.23.8 shadow 22:21 22:25 25:11 shake 53:7 shave 45:19 shoot 27:4 43:14 43:21 show 37:12 shows 45:5 side 14:11.19 50:8.15 56:18.20 64:5.19.9 22:1.16 61:7 64:3 secured 4:3 12:17 see 15:4 21:1 23:20.25 35:2 37:14.9 24:15.12.22 49:1 50:6.7 16:9.9 17:22 28:23 responding 44:16 52:13 responds 57:11 restriction 59:15 restrictions 32:14 33:2 result 3:16 7:1 50:19 results 16:11 return 7:7 reverses 7:16 reversing 3:13 review 37:6 Rifle 1:18 2:6 17:22 right 5:9 6:18 8:18.21 17:5.21 35:5 35:15.16.16 56:12 61:10.22.24 27:1.24 7:8.16 8:19.7 59:21 63:3.15 26:14 29:8 30:14.14.23 55:1.19.21 33:17 33:18 34:16 38:5 41:15.25 56:23 57:13 selective 20:19 47:8 self-defense 28:11 29:10 33:21 35:17 36:15.23 51:1.15 11:3.21 33:14 47:22 55:14 scale 44:14 Scalia 6:5.18 62:20.22.6.17 12:18.14.22 61:23 62:17.17 56:17 56:25 58:4 60:19.4 5:4.25 14:25 15:21.12.16.25 57:4 58:14 60:17 61:17.10 39:16 44:17 46:25 51:10.17 ruling 30:12.16 47:9 49:2 53:19.21.11.18.1.21 2:6.12.19 sever 59:2.15 51:11 56:3..15 59:17 60:8.7 41:10.20.19.11 Alderson Reporting Company .25 57:16 58:21 self-protection 12:2 sell 8:25 sense 19:24 23:5 31:12.6 33:15.21 13:5.19 48:10 49:15.14.8.17 28:17 29:2 31:3.10 22:11 23:3.9.9 20:2 29:12.14.16 62:15 says 14:12.24 26:2.5.12.15.6 20:12 20:14.19 31:16 32:5 33:7 35:22 36:6 39:25 44:23 45:6.12 55:25 56:1.9.Official .22 49:11 56:2.19 6:6.5 scope 11:25 12:10 19:12 24:18 seas 4:1 second 5:11.8 33:25 34:3.11.12 10:17.13 40:21 41:4.21 61:5.22.15.17.20 36:9 36:19 37:22 38:15.12 rigid 20:6 risk 52:15 58:21 ROBERTS 3:3 4:6 12:23 13:8 17:19 24:17 28:4.15 10:5 11:16.24 12:1.23 50:14 separate 26:1 27:5 30:1 32:18 serves 42:1 Seventh 7:18.1. 4:7.16 6:22.17 30:18 S S 2:1 3:1 safety 53:15 54:10 sake 43:7 sale 52:7 satisfied 36:16 40:22 save 15:20 saved 14:13 saves 16:11 saving 16:5 saw 23:2 saying 5:7 6:18 16:3 20:17 23:24 25:11 28:1 41:10 43:8 45:1 50:15.11.22 27:7 28:2 33:7.15.21 39:3 39:7.19 38:14 38:17.13.11 6:17 11:11 60:7 societies 10:5.22 9:6.24 10:25 11:3 12:24 13:20 17:14 18:20 19:5.19.4 27:25 28:11.25 12:3.24 52:3 56:23 57:2.9 60:13.17.24 8:5 8:8.10 62:24 63:5.8.24 64:1 rights 3:24 4:2.21 22:7.18 22:20 23:7.15.12.16.16 16:8.20 39:21 40:9.6.21 40:7.4 36:10 37:13 38:4.22.16.8 41:5.20.16 16:18 17:6.15 41:19.5 48:14 48:18.8 40:10 40:16 41:23 42:6.8 9:10.
21.20 48:4 test 11:7 29:13 48:5 49:18 30:7 44:3 50:12.4 57:3.12 22:6 22:7.6 53:5.19 5:3 6:21 8:6 9:18 13:19 15:2 16:22 18:20 19:23 20:7 22:22 24:19 25:8 26:15 28:18 29:2.15 45:15.1 25:5 36:21.9 Thanks 64:6 15:17 17:1 24:21 43:6.19 60:5 60:15.5.25 take 19:9 25:9 25:2.4.1 24:2.22 57:7.20 50:1.10.14.25 sorts 59:5 Sotomayor 4:17 5:1.17.23 37:1.12 terms 6:13 13:11 46:14.13.13 43:4 Alderson Reporting Company .12 18:19.19 31:19.21 55:2.15.19.12 21:4.25 42:2.12 3:25 4:19.4 30:15 30:22 32:20 34:19 36:13.18.20 someplace 54:22 sophistication 13:21 sorry 9:13 50:16 56:3 sort 8:18 9:1 22:21.Subject to Final Review Page 75 10:18.3 47:7.23 50:9.16.13 56:8 stood 15:12 straightforward 18:4 23:11 strange 57:5 streets 12:14 stress 20:10 stricter 59:4 strides 9:20 striking 21:12 21:13 structure 47:24 47:25 subclause 19:18 subject 29:8 35:20.17 53:3 text 3:15 6:14 53:8.10.19 17:2 17:4 step 46:5.22 14:23 49:6 spoke 8:14 staked 26:1 stand 20:14 standard 20:16 47:18 50:3 58:1.20.21 tell 5:16 63:24 42:12.21 submitted 64:8 64:10 substance 26:2 substantial 22:16 53:21 substantially 23:21 substantive 6:8 6:11 7:2.3.13 33:9 41:23 26:16.18.20 7:20 44:25 thing 24:25 25:2 28:15 42:9 44:6 54:1.23 49:7 49:15.18 59:7 29:15.17 7:19 11:8.17 37:12.17.11.Official .22 43:8 28:1.20.13 States 1:1.19 19:23 20:10.18 61:23 62:1 State's 42:11 statistical 14:16 16:10 statistics 14:11 14:14.24 55:5.7 59:3.6 Stevens 11:14 11:23 12:8 18:8.24 31:12 61:22 32:3.24 19:5 19:7.17 51:23 52:23 57:10 58:3 61:11.19 12:9 13:6.12 think 6:5 7:12 7:25 8:15 14:5 14:19 15:9.11 63:11.13.6.13 59:14 64:4 63:6 texts 63:23 thinking 5:9 textual 20:13 19:1 23:13 thought 12:23 Thank 17:19 14:6 27:24 28:6.23 T 23:5.8 47:17.9 54:24 23:23 24:4 55:6.18 27:3 42:3.24 talk 25:15 30:3.7 supposed 15:3 34:22 Supreme 1:1.8 term 5:15 29:21 45:8 46:8.20 terrific 26:7.21 64:5 35:9 41:1.5.11 talking 6:16 31:16.6 24:10 25:21.5.10 38:12 39:4.7.22 44:20 46:23 47:6 48:12.8.23 19:3 20:20 23:17 24:2.13 51:15 Texas 51:21 51:16.12 sure 7:9 19:13 27:22 35:22 44:24 59:25 62:4 63:19 surprising 22:3 survive 3:11 switching 42:16 system 15:3 31:13.6 standpoint 56:13 stands 21:15 55:15 stare 4:12 stark 21:7 start 41:22 starting 27:9 starts 20:17 State 3:21 4:25 14:17 17:1.6.9.18 43:2 49:3.10.7 39:19 41:2.21.19 35:2 30:7 32:16 59:20.11 T 2:1.15 20:3 20:11 21:5 23:9 38:18.25 44:15 telling 9:3 44:16 45:4.19 51:4.25 32:8.22 48:3 57:22 60:2 sound 38:7 sounds 29:14 39:25 source 9:3 South 9:9 62:25 sowed 22:15 Special 1:20 specific 15:17 63:22 speech 14:21.25 15:25 16:14.10 15:22 16:22 18:16 19:14.24.25 technology 36:12 37:4 36:22 38:3 41:13.18.12.21 41:4 sue 8:24 9:16 sued 9:16 sufficient 41:18 41:19 sufficiently 42:15 57:14 suggest 4:10 35:5 47:9 48:14 suggested 30:17 suicide 49:12 58:23 Sullivan 13:3 19:22 supermajority 8:21 support 1:18 2:7 17:24 supports 47:16 suppose 6:22 theory 7:17.8 31:7.15 63:25 things 14:22 23:18 27:5 46:9 54:6.6.
25 23:1 versus 14:21.12 9:15 17:17 29:12.10 39:18 54:14 words 34:22 38:15 39:16 work 10:2 14:4 worked 52:24 working 21:25 works 31:15 world 55:17 wouldn't 17:2 22:19 32:6 35:18 57:15 wrestle 38:13 wrestled 27:14 write 39:11 writings 28:8 written 26:24 57:21 wrong 4:14 6:18 7:13 30:18 32:24 Wyoming 51:22 X x 1:2.22 62:21 64:1 undertake 7:11 unenumerated 5:20.17 widely 52:16 willing 38:23 Winkler 58:2 wish 15:14 wishes 13:14 women 9:14.1.9.14 true 10:10 23:17 25:2 35:17 48:21 try 57:14 trying 45:14 Tuesday 1:9 turns 42:9 two 8:16 14:9 27:5 37:4 38:5 38:25 46:6 48:17.12 8:6 9:18 32:20 60:15.19.21 33:6 60:24.17 54:21 various 34:16 vary 59:18 versa 25:6 version 13:4 22:22.11 valid 51:12.22 14:23 15:1 veto 8:22 vice 25:6 view 15:11 26:13 30:1 33:11 46:9 47:16 53:6 55:22 58:15 61:11 views 53:14 violated 50:4 violates 41:3 violating 5:4 violations 5:6 violence 57:12 58:22 violent 49:12 Virginia 1:15 virtue 19:24 23:2 virtues 22:14 U Ullman 30:2 underlying 47:17 understand 9:22 11:1 19:20 23:21 27:8.25 27:1.16 valuable 29:10 value 41:24 valued 33:22 variety 50:1.14 8:16 10:17.13 28:11.13 28:11 37:14 39:10 40:25 44:17 understanding 6:15 12:19 13:18 63:22 understood 3:15 4:3 5:14 10:1 10:21 13:16 15:15 30:23 32:18 44:19 60:3.2.15 times 13:3 19:22 tittle 18:10 today 9:23 40:20 40:24 42:13 43:1 47:4 48:21 51:12 total 15:10 26:10 trace 23:14 tradition 10:8 49:14 58:24 traditional 40:13 traditionally 50:25 51:3 traditions 11:4 47:19 translated 21:2 treat 61:8 trend 24:13 25:19 trial 18:12 23:18 31:3.24 10:25 12:15 20:12.25 61:18 62:6 trials 4:20 tried 38:12 trim 10:19 trivial 3:24 trouble 62:12.Official .24 54:3 59:9 61:4 type 36:10 types 50:2 51:14 58:25 use 4:21 16:8 41:4 52:19 58:21 61:11 useful 14:5 49:11.14 54:5 62:3.12 41:21 43:24 52:9 54:10 59:18 ways 5:1 14:9 58:3 weapon 50:4 weapons 50:5 52:10 went 46:13.18 48:7 57:2.8.7 Y Yale 27:23 year 15:21 years 4:8 6:25 7:10 9:23 24:8 26:5 27:2 29:6 30:4 37:9 57:9 57:9 York 13:3 19:22 Z zone 54:11 0 08-1521 1:5 3:4 1 10:13 1:13 3:2 11:16 64:9 14th 34:19 140 4:8 6:25 7:10 9:23 150 6:25 17 2:7 17th 27:24 Alderson Reporting Company .10 62:19.4 61:22 we've 9:20 20:21 whichever 42:15 wide 50:1.16 46:18 we're 46:1.17 14:14 wonderful 6:3 word 19:8.16 60:21 61:9 62:8.15 48:11 48:17 51:4.11 60:20 threats 57:12 three 46:7 time 7:6 9:5.6 62:5 War 3:25 wash 60:9 Washington 1:8 1:17 wasn't 22:24 40:16 watered 23:1 watering 64:3 way 4:23 10:3 15:6 19:1 20:22 22:13 23:8 26:14.18 unpopular 53:6 Unusual 53:23 upheld 52:11 W urged 35:15 want 7:11 15:4 urging 14:2 16:22 22:19 27:16 28:5 33:10 37:8 41:19 45:15.6 52:12.11 V v 1:5 3:4 8:24 10:7 13:3 19:22 30:2.24 8:8.Subject to Final Review Page 76 48:6 58:8.22 63:12 unheard 49:4 unique 25:7 United 1:1.
Subject to Final Review Page 77 1791 34:17 35:17 39:18 48:5.21 5 50 19:23 61:24 59 2:12 Alderson Reporting Company .Official .18 59:17 1833 30:11 1860 53:17 1860's 30:20 51:21 1866 8:20 62:24 1868 3:17 43:1 44:19 64:1 1870's 51:21 1937 29:15 2 2 1:9 200 57:9 2010 1:9 22 62:1 220 29:6 37:9 57:9 27 17:13 28 2:9 61:23 3 3 2:4 59:22 30 24:8 4 4 17:14 44 48:12.
Documents Similar To McDonald v. City of Chicago Transcript 030210
Gonzalez-Oyarzun v. Caribbean City Builders, Inc. - Opinion and Order
raealimb
40 - Pltf Memorandum in Support of MSJ
Unit 10 Digital Story Telling
TariqueShams
Glock 17 Gen 4 - The senior citizen keeps getting better
Magpul Industries PMAG® 30 AK/AKM GEN M3™