Another Update on the Heller Line:
I was at the Supreme Court this morning to hear the Rothgery argument, and I checked out the line for Heller while I was there. Or rather, the line checked me out: When I was walking up the Court steps at around 10:50 am, I heard a person yell "Professor Kerr!," and found two GW Law students, Tyson Horrocks and Ryan Haws, parked out in lawn chairs reading from casebooks while waiting in line. They told me that they arrived at about 11:30 last night, and I think they were the #3 and #4 persons in line. By 10:50am, when I arrived to hear the Rothgery argument, I think they were still the end of the line.
By about 12:20, when the argument in Rothgery was over, I checked the line again. The line had expanded to about 12-15 people, most of them students and about half them law students. Some from GW, some from Georgetown, some from Harvard. As you might expect, most or all were strong Second Amendment supporters. Morale seemed high, at least at 12:30 or so, no doubt helped by the sun that was out and was warming up the plaza outside the Court. Tyson and Ryan were pretty well-prepared, with lots of food with them and lots of reading, too. (Bonus points for Ryan -- when I checked in after the argument, he was reading from a certain Computer Crime Law casebook.) Reinforcements were expected tonight in the form of pizza delivered by Mrs. Horrocks & Haws; given that the temperature tonight will get down to about 35 degrees, I'm sure some hot pizza will be much appreciated.
Anyway, I'll blog about the Rothgery argument shortly; in the meantime, I wanted to get out the important latest scoop on the Heller line.
By about 12:20, when the argument in Rothgery was over, I checked the line again. The line had expanded to about 12-15 people, most of them students and about half them law students. Some from GW, some from Georgetown, some from Harvard. As you might expect, most or all were strong Second Amendment supporters. Morale seemed high, at least at 12:30 or so, no doubt helped by the sun that was out and was warming up the plaza outside the Court. Tyson and Ryan were pretty well-prepared, with lots of food with them and lots of reading, too. (Bonus points for Ryan -- when I checked in after the argument, he was reading from a certain Computer Crime Law casebook.) Reinforcements were expected tonight in the form of pizza delivered by Mrs. Horrocks & Haws; given that the temperature tonight will get down to about 35 degrees, I'm sure some hot pizza will be much appreciated.
Anyway, I'll blog about the Rothgery argument shortly; in the meantime, I wanted to get out the important latest scoop on the Heller line.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Yet Another Post on the Heller Line:
- End of the Line for the Heller Line?:
- Another Update on the Heller Line:
- Heller Line Update:
I hope those are their wives and not their mothers, because that would just be sad.
Yes, wives.
Ex Part McCardle:
In my experience, a general practice in describing a person's basic views about a constitutional provision is to use strength as a proxy for impact or signficance; thus you might describe a person as believing in a strong reading of the provision (it does a lot) or a weak reading of the provision (it doesn't do much). Sorry if that was unclear.
Thanks, Orin, it was perfectly clear in context. My comment was just a joke about the portion of the amendment that appears to be an indecipherable inkblot.
Mr. McCardle:
Just which portion of the amendment appears, in your perspective, to be an indecipherable inkblot? As a matter of disclosure, I fall deeply into the "strong 2A supporter" camp sensu Kerr.
As you stated above, "a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State?" I certainly agree. Although we could debate about whether or not such a militia truely was necessary, in my opinion, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Absolutely - and while I agree with that truism in principle, my opinion means nothing in this regard. That statement just ain't open to discussion or to the vagaries of opinion.
Anyway, I too have two good friends from Chicago, also camped out near the Supreme Court steps. They also are strong 2A supporters. Perhaps Mr's. Horrocks and Haws will be so kind as to share their hot pizza? It would, after all, be appropriate, given they're all members of the same militia.
And, to repeat, it was just a joke, although I believe I may now declare myself a "strong Third Amendment supporter."
Last time I checked, Kurt Lash of Loyola L.A. and Randy Barnett have a (rather vigourous) debate going about that.
Is a gun rights case in DC really the best time to test a cutting-in-line experiment?
Better before the decision than after it.