Major second amendment win in DC today.
Federal appellate judges strike down DC gun ban.
This is a MAJOR pro-gun win.
This is going to probably be appealled for en banc decision (the entire court to look at it, instead of a panel), and there is a pretty good chance it will ultimately make it to the (new and conservative!) US Supreme Court.
Alito, in particular, is pro-gun.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003206.php
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153
quote: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.
This is a MAJOR pro-gun win.
This is going to probably be appealled for en banc decision (the entire court to look at it, instead of a panel), and there is a pretty good chance it will ultimately make it to the (new and conservative!) US Supreme Court.
Alito, in particular, is pro-gun.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/003206.php
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153
quote: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.
0
-
Amen!! 0 -
YEEHAAW!!
quote: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.dang and golly gee, that sounds like what pro-gun's have been saying all along, isn't it?? about time they got something right!quote:Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman (lone dissenter) wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."now let's see if they can work on that peksy "infringement" part.quote:D.C. Council Member Phil Mendelson has scheduled a hearing that will focus on gun control and gun violence. The hearing will be held on March 21. "This ruling is frightening in its scope," Mendelson said. "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the county. It's the first time that a federal court has sad that the Second Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."wah wah wah! be scared! (silly grin)quote:The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.check!quote:Preliminary D.C. police statistics show that 267 gun-involved robberies and assaults were reported during the first six weeks of 2007, compared with 181 in the same period in 2006, Mendelson said. "This situation will likely worsen if the court's decision is not overturned," he said. "Guns are too commonplace, already."well he's going to be really disappointed when crime goes down and guns go up. haw haw hee haw.0 -
It was the first thing on NBC 6PM news this evening. An excellent day for gun owners. [:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:p][:)][:)][:)][}:)][}:)][}:)][:0][:0][:0] 0 -
Terrific news. [^] 0 -
celabration in order for that, and a gun show this weekend!
im broke as usual, but may be som fixer-uppers for me to work on?0 -
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state"
this is the part that i love. i guess that means women cant vote there and white people can own slaves again ? what horrible reasonning from a federal judge. in all of the articles i read i didnt once hear anything mentioned about the cities already high gun crime rate...hmmm0 -
This is great news. But the question comes to mind. Would the demopoops try to tax firearms and ammunition to the point where people wouldn't buy them? 0 -
Do the idiots who oppose citywide handgun bans even bother to think their platform through for one teensy, tiny second?
This is called logic. People learn it in school. Liberals like to pride themselves on being smarter than the idiot, redneck Conservatives, so this should make perfect sense to them. (it won't, of course)
A=career criminals w/criminal history
B=the vast majority of gun crime
C=legal guns
A -> B
A -> ~C
B -> ~C0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state"
this is the part that i love. i guess that means women cant vote there and white people can own slaves again ? what horrible reasonning from a federal judge. in all of the articles i read i didnt once hear anything mentioned about the cities already high gun crime rate...hmmm
It scares the "BLEEP" out of me that there is a federal judge that would say the Constitution of the United States of America doe not apply to the people of of Warshington D.C.0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state"
this is the part that i love. i guess that means women cant vote there and white people can own slaves again ? what horrible reasonning from a federal judge. in all of the articles i read i didnt once hear anything mentioned about the cities already high gun crime rate...hmmm
So...the rest of the Constitution does not apply to the people of D.C? Freedom of Speech only applies to the politicians in the government not the masses in D.C. Sounds like the exact reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights was created, to protect the people from an oppressive government.0 -
Maybe it's too soon to count our chickens.
I'm so jaded by now, that this feels like a setup to me.
Sure hope not.
D.0 -
Doug;
YES !!
I have been watching for 40 years...and something smells here.
Perhaps I cannot finally enjoy a victory...but there has been none..for forty years.
We shall see.0 -
As with the last two posters.
I will remain cautiously optimistic.0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
I'm surprised this decision wasn't unanimous. The single dissenting judge, Karen Henderson, was a George HW Bush appointee and has been a staunch conservative on the Bench.
Yeah, I can tell she is a strict constructionist.[:o)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
44 comments