DC Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of 2nd Amendment Rights
I haven't been following this case, but I just found out about this ruling. Looks like good news for D.C. residents, but we'll see how it plays out. Here is the link to the ruling:
__________________ "When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." -- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson
Gun owner's prayer.... "Oh Lord, if I die, please don't let my wife sell my guns for what I told her they cost."
My favorite part of the ruling so far is the following. Note that the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the one dominated by Commiefornia.
"We note that the Ninth Circuit has recently dealt with a
Second Amendment claim by first extensively analyzing that
provision, determining that it does not provide an individual
right, and then, and only then, concluding that the plaintiff
lacked 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."
Note: Bold italics are mine.
Sorry about the formatting on this. I keep trying to fix it but it always posts with screwy formatting.
(“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”) does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.
(bold is my editing)
I figured out what laws I would be breaking if I lived in Washington DC. Not good. Document was also very confusing, to much legalese for me. This article is also on the Drudge Report.
__________________
XD40 Service
Remington 870
Browning Buckmark
I don't know if anyone is listening to WMAL (DC area talk radio, they have a web cast as well), but I just heard a report they'd repealed the DC gun ban?
To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law
and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State
within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment’s declaration and guarantee that “the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.
That is one of the most bogus statements I've ever read.
We should all be celebrating this victory! If the ruling stands, the DC Gun ban will be history!
You all know what this appeals court decision means, right? It means that the liberals (DC Mayor) will appeal it and it will go to the Supreme Court. That means that we could get a supreme court decision regarding the 2nd amendment. There hasn't been one of those in a long time!
We should all be thankful that President Bush was successful in installing conservative judges to the high court. Just think what would have happened if this case had gone to the high court before his nominees were in place? I'm not sure how Sandra Day O'Connor would have come down on this one.
I can see Ruth Bader Ginsburg getting all bent out of shape on this one!
I've changed my opinion. Here is my current favorite section of the decision:
"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
Linear Mode
