DC gun ban struck down by Federal Appeals Court
On Drudge Report.
Says more information is coming. This is the only link they are offering right now.
http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf
Says more information is coming. This is the only link they are offering right now.
http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf
0
-
Let the left hand wringing begin![;)][:D] 0 -
Beantownshootah's link above has the whole decision. Its a long read but a good solid decision. 0 -
This is just the beginning of this battle. By the time it's over it could be at the Supreme Court. It could have far reaching effects on the 2nd Amendment. Cross your fingers and say a prayer. 0 -
Basiclly it says the word people in the 2nd amendment means idividuals not a collective meaning state. It also site US V Miller about arms meaning those suitable for military uses 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sig232
Beantownshootah's link above has the whole decision. Its a long read but a good solid decision.
I think I only posted the conclusion of the decision, but you can read the whole thing on the DC circuit court of appeal's website, if you like.
I would say its unlikely to be overturned on en banc review, which means that it will probably be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which is likely to want to review the decision (since it contradicts the opinion of the Federal 5th circuit).0 -
i was watching my local news, I live in virginia, and they were talking about it. The DC Police Chief was talking out of his butt about how overturning this 30 year old ban will create a very dangerous situation with youths having handguns, he stated that the rise of youth's with handguns has been tremendous in the past few years (evidently the ban wasnt working to begin with) It's definately a good step in the right direction for the protection of the 2nd amendment.... we just need more like this. 0 -
The city could still appeal to the Supreme Court, which might not be a bad thing. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case (which they don't have to), it is likely they would uphold the decision. The Supremes seem to have a fondness for the DC Court of Appeals, they usually side with the decisions made by that court.
If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, then that's that, there is no arguing it any further. The point will be forever set in the legal framework of this country, there will no longer be any legal debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens. Gun rights groups like the NRA, GOA, SAF, or whoever can then begin the process of challenging restrictive gun laws all across America using this precedent as their legal argument. Laws like the Chicago handgun ban would no longer be able to stand up in court given this new judicial ruling.0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
The city could still appeal to the Supreme Court, which might not be a bad thing. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case (which they don't have to), it is likely they would uphold the decision. The Supremes seem to have a fondness for the DC Court of Appeals, they usually side with the decisions made by that court.
If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, then that's that, there is no arguing it any further. The point will be forever set in the legal framework of this country, there will no longer be any legal debate over whether the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens. Gun rights groups like the NRA, GOA, SAF, or whoever can then begin the process of challenging restrictive gun laws all across America using this precedent as their legal argument. Laws like the Chicago handgun ban would no longer be able to stand up in court given this new judicial ruling.
OK. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling conflicts the D.C Court.
"We note that the Ninth circuit has recently dealt with a Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that provision, determining that it doe not provide an individual right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff lacked the standing to challenge a California statute restricting the possession, use, and transfer of assault weapons. (See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1066-67 & n.18(9th. Cir. 2003) We think such an approach is doctrinally quite unsound."
Let's just say for argument sake that the SCOTUS turns down an appeal. Which court ruling do others apply?0 -
VOTE on Gun BAN overturn:
www.nbc4.com
www.wtopnews.com0 -
In one of the most heavily policed cities in the world, why would normal, common citizens have the need for a handgun? Aren't they protected by a well trained, professional police force? I don't understand all the hoop-la over something as un-necessary as a single Constitution Right. Don't the litigants know the government will protect them?
[;)]
I wonder how many FFL holders live in D.C.?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
VOTE on Gun BAN overturn:
www.nbc4.com
www.wtopnews.com
88% Pro as of right now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
VOTE on Gun BAN overturn:
www.nbc4.com
www.wtopnews.com
88% Pro as of right now.
Dang! It's gone down a point since yesterday.[:(]0 -
I am no Constitutional scholar by any means, but I still ike talking out of my butt.
For the city of D.C. to appeal this, they need to find a point of fault with the ruling. It's more than just saying "We disagree with the judge". They need to find a point of error in the judges' logic and argue that point.
What is the cities argument going to be? Maybe I am a little bit biased, but the judges' made some vry strong points.0 -
Great news, sound logic.
I'm a little worried over their ambiguous wishy washy definition of "Arms". Seems to me any hand held object designed as a weapon qualifies.
Just because you don't hunt with a short barrel shotgun, and the military primarily uses rifles, doesn't mean a sawed-off shotgun is not an Arm as per the Constitution (not that I desire a sawed off shotgun anyway).
I am also equally suspicious of their registration and testing exceptions.
Though I am behind the common sense gun law they proposed, no bearing arms while intoxicated/ no getting intoxicated while bearing arms.
That limits your actions, not your rights.
And I REALLY hope DC appeals it. Then it will be seen if there is anything redeeming about Bush. His appointments could get the case heard(instead of ignored), and won.
With 8 years of Bush, all that has been done so far for our gun rights was nothing. He did nothing instead of something, democrats sure would have done something... BAD. Oh yea, and Ashcroft? made a press release supporting an individuals right to bear arms.
Really, its time to see more action. The supreme court doesn't need to worry about re-election, lets hope they show some testicles.0 -
Yes, the only part the court did not address was what should not be covered by the Constitution, Full Auto? Semi Auto? High Capacity mags? Grenades? Rocket Propelled Grenades?
Personally, I say anything that can be called "Small Arms" should be legal.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments