HUGE NEWS! DC Gun ban struck down by DC court!

[handyrandyrc]

Just read over on the High Road. This is HUGE, fellas. Could this lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court? I know they (according to quotes from Alito) would welcome a case to rule on the 2nd amendment.

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

The court was divided, 2-1, but they recognized the 2nd amendment as an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one.

[imashooter2]

Good news!

I predict SCOTUS would not entertain an appeal. Overturning all gun laws would be (from their perspective) a bad thing. Invalidating the 2nd would be equally bad. They will let this one fester for a while longer.

[piwo]

Wow... who'd a thunk it it there, in that place!!!!!!

[montana_charlie]

I found this interesting...

"But her [Judge Henderson's] 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."

If Judge Henderson believes that the provisions of the Second Amendment do not apply in D.C. because it is not a State, then no part of the Bill Of Rights applies there...no?

That would seem to include her First Amendment rights...
CM

[Harry O]

In reading the majority opinion, it would seem the thread around here recently that said the 2nd Amendment says we can have atomic bombs in our basement, is wrong.

They make a really big deal of the words "Keep and Bear" arms -- mostly the Bear part. Even the majority opinion here says that if you cannot carry it, it does not fall under the 2nd Amendment.

[1Shirt]

Bout time folks! 1Shirt!:coffee:

[rmb721]

The ANTI"s will probably let this ride until there is enough LIBERAL judges on the supreme court.

[leftiye]

We should pay attention to where this URL is found. These guys aren't gun nuts, they're conservatives. Nuthin wrong with that. What I find exciting is their pro gun zeal.

I've seen numerous posts here stating that we gun owners are in the minority, and that we should expect that our gun ownership rights will erode over time therefore.

My take on the situation is that pro gun people like ourselves may well be in the minority, but if the conservative vote (which IS the majority) were to be brought to our support, then we would be in the majority.

Majority actually may not be the issue. I'm definitely a Republican (not a Communist), so don't get derailed by what I'm going to say next. The communists used to say that with 10% of a given population they could take over a country. Of course they used tactics that I don't like, but we've got abit more than 10% in the gun fraternity. Also, no one's talking about taking over anything, but there's no reason that we gun owners can't win this fight.

Especially with the conservative majority there to be brought to bear, and with rulings like this. We need to enlighten everyone that we can, especially any who aren't already brain dead from liberal (reads flawed) thinking, or drugs.

[montana_charlie]

They make a really big deal of the words "Keep and Bear" arms -- mostly the Bear part. Even the majority opinion here says that if you cannot carry it, it does not fall under the 2nd Amendment.
For any who wish to read the actual ruling... http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

I read it, and did so slowly enough to understand it. Took most of the morning.

The finding made several important points...

- The meaning of 'militia' boiled down to being the majority of the population...not the National Guard, or other civicly organized bodies.

- The advantage (to the state) of a well-regulated milita does not mean that the protected right does not belong to individual citizens.

- The terms 'keep' and 'bear' were given equal importance, and mean that the citizen may 'have privately owned arms' and may 'carry arms' while in pursuit of those activities which require them.

- The reasons for citizens to have arms is for (both) hunting and self defense.

- Self defense includes defending against lawbreakers and tyrannical government, as well as overseas antagonists.

- 'Arms' was defined as weapons which are in 'common usage' (both) by civilians and military members.

These are important rulings.
CM

[felix]

Well-regulated means something is organized. I wonder what that organization(s) is. They should have had engineers write the constitution. ... felix

[felix]

Common usage means just that. If I develop an atomic bomb, that atomic bomb is in common with me and the military. ... felix

[sundog]

As much as I would like to say that we can have everything we want in the way of arms under the 2nd, I still feel like what the Founders intended and what English common law and history will bear out is that individual arms are what is intended. In the context of history, what does it take to defend self, family, and property? Collectively, to repel a tyrannical government, which is the other part, it takes those patriots to be self armed. The question then, is with what? Are we to keep an arsenal equivalent to what would be used against us? If my neighbor is building and storing nukes, I might be imposed upon for my own pursuit of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hunting is not a primary issue, although recognized.

NFA34 and CGA68 are unconstitutional. Do I obey them? Yes, they are law, until repealed or found unconstitutional (which is what they are). They were political knee jerk reactions to organized crime and political assasinations. Nothing to do with you and me defending ourselves. But who got restricted? Us. Not the bad folks and not the gummint. In fact the gummint got to build a whole new beaurocracy that is now totally out of control! BATFE. And it works for the Treasury Department? Huh? You see how screwed up this is? Tabacco - big bucks law suits. Alcohol - one amendment to ban it and another to repeal the ban and NFA34 because of all the crime by bootleggers and such, tax, and we just keep doing it to ourselves! AND keep letting it happen. Oh, btw, that was a bunch goody two shoes do-gooder, self-proclaimed save the world from themselves liberals who made all that prohibition crap happen, which in turn gave rise to orgainezed crime. It's the libs fault, they won;t shut up, and they won;t go away. Maybe that's why they don't want us to have guns. Too intimidating.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, STOOPID!

Yea, it's the guns, stoopid. And you're not freaking getting them!

[monadnock#5]

Hey Guys, I'd prefer a big victory too, but I'll take any victory I can get. This ruling is a good thing. Don't fight it, go with it.

As far as public opinion goes, polls have shown that we're the winners. The public isn't sure what to make of us gun nuts, but they sure know enough to fear an all powerful government entity, with no checks, and no balances.

The big fear for me is the UN. With one stroke of the pen, all our rights could go away, and the pols would say "Don't look at us. We were just going along with international law."

Ken

[sundog]

45, thanks, I feel better. So, you see, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the amendments) are not dead. They are living, breathing documents, with us every day -- just as if the Founders were still with us. The Founders had the hand of God on them, and because of that we are the most fortunate people on earth. Some say, not relevant. I say, not hardly.

[Buckshot]

............It was big stuff on MSN/NBC, the webpage this computer at work boots to. It was such great news it was hard to actually breath for a few moments. Of course the liberal coverage let stand and idiotic statement by the mayor of DC. He said this will only cause an increase in crime. Well excuse me but check out the increase of crime SINCE the ban. What a neebish! The news reporter should have brought that up, but then it would have made the mayor look like a lunatic it naturally wasn't.

The "Respond to this article" section was up to 131 pages when I logged on. I scrolled through them and I'd have to say fully 98% were pro. There were a few, "Oh my God we're all gonna die!" posts.

.................Buckshot

[montana_charlie]

That PDF I linked to detailed where the D.C. court showed some disagreement with the nuts in California called the Ninth Circuit Court. Californians should take note of that - if they need some backup for a case being heard in that state.
CM

[AZ-Stew]

This decision is in agreement with that of the 5th Circuit Court in the Emerson case. The decisions were very similar. So now we have two Circuits saying there is a individual right, while the 9th (the most overturned Circuit in the nation) says we DON'T have an individual right under the Second Amendment. This will eventually have to go to the Supreme Court just to level the playing field. The 14th Amendment says all citizens have a right to equal protection under the law. Therefore, we can't have all the different Circuit Courts rendering different decisions with respect to the Constitution. I just hope GW gets the opportunity to appoint another SC justice before his term is finished. Unfortunately, the senate's Schumers, et al, will fillabuster the appointee.

Regards,

Stew

[TAWILDCATT]

Also You Should Note The Justices Went To The Old Dictionary For Usage Of Language At That Period.there Is Only One Problem I Can See.the Suprems Have Always Squirmed Out Of Directly Answering The Second Admendment.there Have Been A Number Of Rulings In The Past Giving The Same Ruling But They Alwas Found A Way To Avoid Direct Answers.the 1934 Act Was Based On The Commerce Clause And Not On The Second Admendment.controling Commerce.they Will Appeal.

[fatnhappy]

Also You Should Note The Justices Went To The Old Dictionary For Usage Of Language At That Period.there Is Only One Problem I Can See.the Suprems Have Always Squirmed Out Of Directly Answering The Second Admendment.there Have Been A Number Of Rulings In The Past Giving The Same Ruling But They Alwas Found A Way To Avoid Direct Answers.the 1934 Act Was Based On The Commerce Clause And Not On The Second Admendment.controling Commerce.they Will Appeal.

yeah, well, that doesn't matter one wit. I read the actual ruling from start to finish twice. Miller didn't have anything to do with the commerce clause. AT ALL!

First, standing, which basically is the right to be heard for redress by the courts was excrutiatingly described. Actions against the DC gun ban can not be summarily dismissed now. It is in stone.
Interestingly, 5 decisions were heavily referenced, silveira from the 9th which was eviscerated, emerson which was by and large only referenced for its historical annotation, Miller because it was a direct 2nd ammendment case, Robertson which very eloquently described the relationship between rights as unchecked license and responsibility, AND DRED SCOTT!

When in doubt this court actually did something unheard of, they actually referenced the law as written. Besides the contemporaneous records of the first and second congress, they researched the constitutions of the original colonies for manner of speech and constitutional concepts. Perhaps the strongest were the references to the framers understanding "states" rights when writing the tenth by referencing a state as opposed to the people, and the mortal blow to the "collective right" retards, the word keep.

I suggest everyone here download and read it for yourself. maybe for once you'll get something resembling public service for all those tax dollars we spend.

[montana_charlie]

I read the actual ruling from start to finish twice.
Did you enjoy Henderson's straw grasping?
It was kinda like she could see the whole anti-gun movement being shoved down a hole, but called out that D.C. is different 'cuz it's not a state.
CM

[handyrandyrc]

I just hope GW gets the opportunity to appoint another SC justice before his term is finished. Unfortunately, the senate's Schumers, et al, will fillabuster the appointee.


I know the filibuster is an effective deterrent to "hanging things up" in the Senate. However, if someone is going to filibuster, I think they should REALLY have to speak the entire time. Not this, "We call a filibuster..." and everyone backs down. I want it like the good ol' days.

Senators would stop drinking for 24 hours or more before the filibuster, so that they could speak long and drink without having to pee. There were cots brought in, buckets to piss in, etc. Now THAT's what I'm talking about. None of this "pansy filibuster". I want the REAL DEAL.

[Firebird]

The bad part of the ruling is that they explicitly say that "not be infringed" does NOT mean that firearms can't be regulated. So the '34 and '68 acts will be found to be legal, since they simply regulate and do not ban any firearm. Any local & state prohibitions about full-auto etc should be thrown out along with Reagan's banning of all full-auto weapons made after 1986, since they are bans and not just regulating the sale of the weapons. The 10-round magazine limit, if the democrats manage to bring it back, I bet it will be found to be just regulating, not banning, of the firearms. But the rest of the AWB should be thrown out under this ruling since it is about banning arms.

[Old Ironsights]

Here's the WORST part... it's sorely agitated the Bradys, who are making money on it. WHy can't we deport these morons?

What follows is a letter sent by the Bradys to one of our Spies....
--------------------------------
Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,
Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com
---------------------------------------------------

Now, want to do somthing fun? If their system allows it donations of less than a dollar, donating a nickle by credit card COSTS them Seventy five cents or thereabouts.

As much as I hate the credit card companies, I can't think of a better way to buy VISA's CEO a new Jet... :twisted:

[wiljen]

$5.00 minimum - nuts

[waksupi]

Sounds like the Brady Bunch have thier panties in a serious wad, and thier hair is all frizzled up!

[whisler]

I'd rather see them with their panties in a bunch and their hair "on fire"
Can't happen to a more deserving bunch.

[TAWILDCATT]

fatnhappy:my referance to commerce clause was to the 1934 law.not to Miller.Miller never responded to the court because he was dead.that was why the ruling on short barreled guns was made not every one knows ww1 used shotguns.as we did also in ww2 and vietnam.:coffee:

[scottiemom]

............ Of course the liberal coverage let stand and idiotic statement by the mayor of DC. He said this will only cause an increase in crime. Well excuse me but check out the increase of crime SINCE the ban. What a neebish! The news reporter should have brought that up, but then it would have made the mayor look like a lunatic it naturally wasn't.

.................Buckshot

as someone who lived in DC for the past 4 years and finally had the good sense to leave....the mayor needs no help in looking like a lunatic.....sheesh!! meanwhile, I will keep my fingers crossed they come to their senses!