In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
DC GUN BAN OVERTURNED??
Wagon Wheel
Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
DC GUN BAN OVERTURNED
WTOP 630am Washington, DC
Just heard on WTOP that a FED appeals court has overturned DC's gun ban. Details at 1pm.
WTOP 630am Washington, DC
Just heard on WTOP that a FED appeals court has overturned DC's gun ban. Details at 1pm.
Comments
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html
So if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear this case then does that mean the D.C. Circuit decision stands? What influence will this have on other parts of the county? I seem to remember an emphatic decision in New Orleans (5th Circuit?) a few years ago, but the Supremes weren't going to touch that hot potato.
I wouldn't be surprised if they choose to do the same with this decision. In that case, will the gun shops open in D.C., or will the D.C. government stand in clear violation of a Federal Court decision, knowing that there is no will to enforce that decision?
Oooh! I like this logic. Since there is no constitutional protection in D.C., maybe we can shut up all those politicians since the 1st Amendment doesn't apply there.
[8D]
I always knew D.C. was an odd place. Apparently it is the Constitutional equivalent to the Bermuda Triangle, at least in Judge Henderson's opinion.
Things are gonna get hot! I love it.
I sent an email to the Brady campaign this morning congratulating them on their stunning loss. Wow, what a setback for the gun grabbers!
Fitz
0 gun laws!!!
Here's my story:
http://lestdarknessfall.blogspot.com/2007/03/dangerous-ruling-for-bad-guys.html
If anyone else out there blogs, you might also want to cover this same story as the Washington Post uses Technorati to automatically (albeit temporarily) link back to any blog who has linked to a Washington Post story. This is a great opportunity, as you can get a link to your pro-gun story on the same page as the Washington Post article, which gives you a chance to reach the more liberally oriented Post readers and hopefully sway them to our side.
"While the ruling caught observers off guard, it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights. Indeed, the D.C. lawsuit, by six residents assisted by the Cato Institute, was filed in 2003, just months after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said gun bans are unconstitutional."
Read the entire article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901794.html
Also of interest, is this Newsbuster article.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11334
Every Comment here, and there are some good ones, support the decision.
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
March 12, 2007
JPFO ALERT: Parker Decision: Celebrate, but with Grave
Concerns
By now the news about the decision Parker v. District of
Columbia case has reached many gun owners and rights
advocates via Internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?
em&ex=1173758400&en=6f0dd1043eae85fb&ei=5087%0A
or http://tinyurl.com/26ow2m
In a nutshell, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit declared the D.C. gun law
unconstitutional to the extent that the law prohibits all
firearms possession.
This decision is better news for the right to keep and bear
arms than was the Fifth Circuit's Emerson decision.
Although the Emerson case contains an excellent and correct
analysis of the Second Amendment, the decision did not
strike down any laws and the armed citizen still lost. In
this recent Parker case, the statute was declared
unconstitutional and the armed citizens won.
Our joy must be tempered by two potential factors:
(1) The losing party can petition the D.C. Circuit to
review the matter "en banc" -- which means having the
matter redecided by a panel of *all* of the D.C. Circuit
judges. The D.C. Circuit is authorized to have 12 active
judges, so if there are no vacancies, it would take only
seven judges to vote for rehearing. The only reason to vote
for a rehearing en banc would be to reverse the current
decision. It seems likely that there are seven judges on
the D.C. Circuit who would follow their political leanings
and vote to reverse.
Truth be told, it would be worse for Second Amendment
jurisprudence if the D.C. Circuit does reverse the Parker
decision, because en banc decisions of federal circuit
courts have especially strong precedential value.
(2) The losing party can petition to the Supreme Court.
They have a very slim chance of having the case heard in
the Supreme Court, but until they have filed their petition
and it has been denied, the possibility exists.
The potential results of a hearing before the Supreme Court
are highly uncertain for two reasons. First, the actual
views of the justices about the Second Amendment are not
well known. Second, the "conservative" justices on the
Court are the sort that tend to believe that, when in
doubt, local and state powers should be upheld. This
current Court has no great record of protecting individual
rights at all -- not against state legislatures. Since
the D.C. gun laws are the equivalent of state laws, we
could expect the Supreme Court to find a majority of votes
in favor of the easy way out: just support the local law,
and chalk it up to "democracy."
Between possibility (1) and (2), we far more fear (1). The
D.C. Circuit could very likely take this case en banc --
all it takes is a vote of the judges -- and this great
precedent will likely be erased and disgraced (in the eyes
of the "mainstream" judges around the country).
Nevertheless, it is wonderful news that at least two
federal appellate judges on the D.C. Circuit court can
speak the truth accurately, clearly and publicly. Looking
at both the Parker decision and the Fifth Circuit's Emerson
decision, we can now point out that our individual-rights
view is held by distinguished judges as well as by scholars
across the nation. Our position cannot be disregarded as
purely a fringe movement.
Then again, we never did quite realize why the fundamental
right to self-defense -- and the right to possess peaceably
the tools to implement that right -- should be anything
other than self-evident.
- The Liberty Crew
The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: (Unanimously Adopted in Congress, July 4, 1776, at Philadelphia)
Excerpts:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter....
WE THEREFORE, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies,...
Had the Founding Fathers used one of the following references:
Them...
Mankind..
Themselves..
these Colonies...
We have Petitioned for Redress...
Our repeated Petitions...
..unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We..
to "We the people", (used throughout the document) to replace "people" in the 2nd Amendment wording I may be inclined to agree with the ambiguity theory. The Founding Fathers were smarter than that and made it quite clear. IMHO, a prerequisite for a judiciary position should be a simple reading comprehension test!!
Sorry, I just can't buy their argument!!!!
This came just in time to help us combat new gun laws, and perhaps begin to roll back other gun laws!!!
0 gun laws!!!
There will always be gun laws, even the court said "(guns)can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree." Unfortunately, "reasonable" is up to interpretation and probably more litigation.
As the court said more fully:
The Amendment does not protect `the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but, rather `the right of the people.' The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political benefit-and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
The court did not announce an absolute right to gun ownership and use. That can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree. But since the Amendment does provide some constitutional protection, private gun ownership and use cannot be banned completely, as it effectively was in the District.
The decision not to rehear the case means city officials must appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if they hope to preserve what had been considered among the most-stringent gun laws in the nation. City officials have 90 days to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The District's gun-control laws, as have been outlined by many law-enforcement experts, are a critical part of the District's public safety strategy. And they are all over Bush for "Stay The Course" and Supporting a FAILED Policy??? What a JOKE!!!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20070508-115457-4155r.htm
D.C. Circuit Court Affirms Earlier Parker Ruling
Friday, May 11, 2007
On Tuesday, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, declined to review the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia -- the case in March that upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. The decision not to review the case means that an earlier ruling by the three-judge panel will stand.
In commenting on the decision, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty noted that the District's gun ban is ".a critical part of the District's crime-control strategy." This strategy, of course, has been an abysmal failure, as year in and year out, D.C., currently the nation's murder capital, ranks at or near the top of the list of the nation's most violent cities.
The city now has 90 days to decide whether it wishes to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Stay tuned to future Grassroots Alerts for additional developments on this story.
Fenty Nears Gun-appeal Decision: Article published Jul 11, 2007
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.washingtontimes.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Click here for the link
Parker vs Washington, D.C. - DC 04-7041a
Argued December 7, 2006 Decided March 9, 2007
http://www.zprc.org/legal/parkervdc.html
Free Republic post and comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864429/posts
D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Review Gun Ban Ruling:
On July 16, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced that he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down on Second Amendment grounds Washington, D.C.'s firearms ban. If the Supreme Court agrees to review this case, Parker v. District of Columbia, it will be the first time the Court has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. "This case is enormously important, not only to the Parker plaintiffs and other D.C. residents, but to persons nationwide who care about the Constitution and the right to bear arms," said plaintiff's co-counsel and Cato scholar Robert Levy.
Read the Cato Institute press release
Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?, by Robert A. Levy
A Victory for Self-Defense, by Robert A. Levy
The Way of the Gun, Interview with Robert A. Levy
Gun Ban Shot Down, featuring Robert A. Levy, 03/13/2007 (MP3 )
Sourced From:
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3.php
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
This came just in time to help us combat new gun laws, and perhaps begin to roll back other gun laws!!!
0 gun laws!!!
There will always be gun laws, even the court said "(guns)can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree." Unfortunately, "reasonable" is up to interpretation and probably more litigation.
At what point do courts always agree, here?? They are not gods... and may find out, should they rule the wrong way, just how precarious life can be.
As the court said more fully:
The Amendment does not protect `the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but, rather `the right of the people.'
Actually, it doesn't protect a damned thing. It looks more to me like an acknowledgement of a preexisting right, and a command to the gov't to keep its damned hands off. Since it doesn't seem to want to respect that, at whatever point we decide is right to retake our country, that would be their just reward at the shooting range. Death for treason.
The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
As I said, it gives no limits to us in what we may use, and puts full limits on what the gov't can do to stop it. Since it doesn't want us armed, there is a reason for it, ie. monopoly on force.
Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did.
When you couple the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms with the supreme law of the land, and judge confronted with this incontrovertible evidence would be forced to declare all gun laws on all levels nullified... dead, straight to hell, where they belong. if they cannot, they should be removed from the bench in shackles, prepared for the gallows.
We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political benefit-and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
Take a good look at the Bill of Rights. Enumerated among them are rights that must exist for people to be free. These are the rights that tyrants want gone the most. That is why the right to vote, the right to hunt, the right to smoke, the right to drink, and any other right of that type is not enumerated, but falls under the 9th Amendment. The 10th Amendment is the one that keeps smaller scope tyrants from looking at the supreme law of the land as if they are mere suggestions.
The court did not announce an absolute right to gun ownership and use.
So what?? That doesn't mean they are right, and they're not. Judges are not gods, and are fallible, especially when they are pond scum socialists and commie activists.
That can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree.
It is an infringement, and that is contrary to the 2nd Amendment's wording.
But since the Amendment does provide some constitutional protection, private gun ownership and use cannot be banned completely, as it effectively was in the District.
The only thing needed to ban guns is a tyrant's Gestapo assaulting the people in blitzkriegs and the cooperation of the people. Tyrants fail when their subjects disobey and overthrow them.
quote:Originally posted by Matchshot
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
This came just in time to help us combat new gun laws, and perhaps begin to roll back other gun laws!!!
0 gun laws!!!
There will always be gun laws, even the court said "(guns)can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree." Unfortunately, "reasonable" is up to interpretation and probably more litigation.
At what point do courts always agree, here?? They are not gods... and may find out, should they rule the wrong way, just how precarious life can be.
As the court said more fully:
The Amendment does not protect `the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but, rather `the right of the people.'
Actually, it doesn't protect a damned thing. It looks more to me like an acknowledgement of a preexisting right, and a command to the gov't to keep its damned hands off. Since it doesn't seem to want to respect that, at whatever point we decide is right to retake our country, that would be their just reward at the shooting range. Death for treason.
The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
As I said, it gives no limits to us in what we may use, and puts full limits on what the gov't can do to stop it. Since it doesn't want us armed, there is a reason for it, ie. monopoly on force.
Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did.
When you couple the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms with the supreme law of the land, and judge confronted with this incontrovertible evidence would be forced to declare all gun laws on all levels nullified... dead, straight to hell, where they belong. if they cannot, they should be removed from the bench in shackles, prepared for the gallows.
We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political benefit-and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
Take a good look at the Bill of Rights. Enumerated among them are rights that must exist for people to be free. These are the rights that tyrants want gone the most. That is why the right to vote, the right to hunt, the right to smoke, the right to drink, and any other right of that type is not enumerated, but falls under the 9th Amendment. The 10th Amendment is the one that keeps smaller scope tyrants from looking at the supreme law of the land as if they are mere suggestions.
The court did not announce an absolute right to gun ownership and use.
So what?? That doesn't mean they are right, and they're not. Judges are not gods, and are fallible, especially when they are pond scum socialists and commie activists.
That can still be regulated to a reasonable though not unrestricted degree.
It is an infringement, and that is contrary to the 2nd Amendment's wording.
But since the Amendment does provide some constitutional protection, private gun ownership and use cannot be banned completely, as it effectively was in the District.
The only thing needed to ban guns is a tyrant's Gestapo assaulting the people in blitzkriegs and the cooperation of the people. Tyrants fail when their subjects disobey and overthrow them.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst031207.htm