Follow the action in the courtroom as the Supreme Court addresses the Second Amendment for the first time in nearly 70 years. Down Range TV coverage of the DC v Heller case includes audio links to SCOTUS arguments and audio commentaries from Second Amendment scholars David Hardy, Dave Kopel, plus from correspondent, Jim Shepherd, and producer, Michael Bane.

Click here for Down Range TV coverage

Click here for more information about the case

From GunLaws.com:

Originally introduced in Arizona as The Defenseless Victim Act of 2002, this bill recognizes that gun-free zones, recklessly made and typically with no alternative security provided, are known to be extremely dangerous.

We have seen this (when the bill was first introduced) in the Wakefield, Mass., slayings, the Luby's Massacre, and even the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, where pilots and passengers were defenseless, in the false name of security. Congress responded to that with the "Arm The Pilots" law.

The death toll from gun-free zones continues to mount, with the 2007 Virginia Tech slaughter of helpless students and faculty, and at a Christmastime massacre that year in an Omaha shopping mall. The mall had "no guns allowed" signs to keep out FBI-certified citizens with CCW permits. The murderer, as in all such cases, disobeyed the signs. The news media continues to suppress stories where armed individuals stop such mayhem. See for example, The Bias Against Guns, by John Lott, for numerous egregious examples. You can also read this eloquent gun-bias editorial online.

The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act basically says that, in public places, if you create a dangerous gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes. There is no cost or budget item associated with enacting this bill.

The idea that gun-free zones are safe is fraudulent.

It is a mythology perpetrated by anti-rights activists who can often be recognized by their beliefs that:

1. self defense should be illegal,
2. guns should be confiscated,
3. no one but "authorities" should have guns,
4. government can take care of you better than you can.

The anti-self-defense lobby would tell you to rely upon the police for your safety, but they always omit the inconvenient facts that:

1. police have no legal duty to protect you;
2. they routinely respond only after an event to pick up the pieces;
3. when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

I wonder if it might be possible to really get this on the table (it has been seriously discussed in Arizona and Georgia legislatures). As the authors note, even forcing the concept of gun-free zone liability into the general discourse would have an excellent effect — public property owners would start thinking in terms of civil liability as well as criminal liability.

If I am ever involved in a mass shooting in a place where I am forbidden to have my legal gun, you can bet I will be filing a spectacular lawsuit against the property owner, all the associated businesses on the property, every single corporate entity involved, plus their spouses, pets, kitchen appliances and anything else I can think of.

I think it is appalling that the MSM continue to parade their antigun bias... read David Hardy's Arms & the Law reporting. The newspapers and electronic media should be trumpeting that an armed civilian stopped a madman's slaughter... but that would go against their deeply held religious belief that we are all incapable of protecting ourselves and need Big Brother 24/7.