PDA

View Full Version : DC Gun Ban struck down by Federal Appeals Court


Killbot
03-09-2007, 01:00 PM
They also held the 2A is an individual right! :applause:


From page 4...

(“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.

Medula Oblongata
03-09-2007, 01:21 PM
I just finished reading all 75 pages of the decision, and it applies ONLY to the posession of firearms within the home (not the business) and does not address the registration requirement. Its a victory, but a small victory.

f3rr37
03-09-2007, 01:55 PM
At this point I think a victory is a victory, its one step forward.

Killbot
03-09-2007, 02:08 PM
I just finished reading all 75 pages of the decision, and it applies ONLY to the posession of firearms within the home (not the business) and does not address the registration requirement. Its a victory, but a small victory.

The big one here is that it downed the "collective right" BS.That right there is a biggie.

Megatron
03-09-2007, 02:23 PM
A small victory is much better than no victory. :D

EARS
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
At least a small one for the good guys/girls.

Medula Oblongata
03-09-2007, 05:03 PM
The big one here is that it downed the "collective right" BS.That right there is a biggie.
There are already many decisions from the appeals court that the second amendment applies to the people, not the national guard. That particular part of the ruling has no bearing on the law, and very little weight is added to case history.

There are as many instances of the appeals court holding the RKBA as an individual liberty as there are instances of it being declared a 'collective right.'

Only a Supreme Court decision will determine once and for all (and only until the next time they rule) whether or not its an inalienable right, or one held by the organized militia's.

that some states have constitutional provisions for the individual ownership of firearms is besides the point if the Fed's determine otherwise.. That whole 'supremacy' issue..

p99guy
03-09-2007, 05:35 PM
Every little bit helps...Here is the alert I just got on that one..and it has a link to the decision text

NEWS RELEASE
D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING HOLDS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHT’
BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the 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.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

The ruling may be viewed at http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf 194 KiB

Note that PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software.


-END-

Megatron
03-09-2007, 05:44 PM
I betcha Pelosi, Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Obama, and the Brady bunch must be crying over this bit of news. :cry:

That's music to my ears. :D

Kurtz
03-09-2007, 06:14 PM
M.O. is correct; the "conflicts" amongst the various Circuit Courts can only be resolved by the Supreme Court (in the event it finds the issue worth granting review (ostensibly to resolve such conflicts or for some other reason)).

Megatron
03-09-2007, 08:54 PM
M.O. is correct; the "conflicts" amongst the various Circuit Courts can only be resolved by the Supreme Court (in the event it finds the issue worth granting review (ostensibly to resolve such conflicts or for some other reason)).

DC's mayor, who's an arrogant jackass, has already said that he plans on appealing that decision.

If it did make it to the US Supreme Court, let's hope that today's decision will be upheld.

Killbot
03-09-2007, 09:31 PM
I think this is about the best chance we have of getting the individual right interp from the USSC. The court is slightly conserative, more now than it will be in the future. Would like one more on our side for good measure, but I just don't see that happening in the current enviroment.

Kennedy will likely be the wildcard here.

badaddiction
03-09-2007, 11:52 PM
I think this is about the best chance we have of getting the individual right interp from the USSC. The court is slightly conserative, more now than it will be in the future. Would like one more on our side for good measure, but I just don't see that happening in the current enviroment.

Kennedy will likely be the wildcard here.


I am not so sure darker days are ahead as far as the Supreme Court's makeup goes. Three of what were thought conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican Presidents ended up being more left leaning...so perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way with a Democratic President appointing a replacement sometime in the future. I hope this DC Mayor pushes the issue. When its all over I venture a guess that he will have wished he left the issue alone. It was very refreshing to see a court actually make reasonable sense of what our framer's intent was. It LQQKs like they actually read earlier writings and commentaries from the framers other than the Constitution, that gave the spirit of what is meant in the Constitution and the Amendments.

thorfinn
03-10-2007, 07:15 AM
I hope this turns out to be a good thing.

I applaud the judges but statements like this:

""Judge Laurence Silberman also 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." This might include, for example, gun registration, or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill or other "reasonable" restrictions.""

Show they still dont get it.

susan28
03-14-2007, 04:15 PM
it's certainly a refresh9ing departure from what's become the norm, especially in federal courts.. and think of all the *frying pans* this will save!

kamo
03-14-2007, 04:22 PM
Was watching Glen Beck the other day and thought this was interesting.



BECK: All right. I`m a gun owner. There, I`ve said it. I own gun. I own lots of them, and I`m burying food in my back yard, as well.

I`m just saying, gun control is one of those issues that a lot of people don`t usually discuss at dinner parties, you know, unless they`re at my house. But I care a lot about it.

So when I read this weekend about the latest in Washington, D.C.`s attempt to keep that ban in place that prohibits its citizens from owning guns -- a federal appeals court has decided that it`s unconstitutional, what a surprise there -- I wanted to talk to the people who know this subject the best.

Now I`m fortunate to be joined by two men who are almost never on the same show together. This should be a spirited discussion. We have Chris Cox, who is the political strategist for the National Rifle Association, and Paul Helmke, who is the president of the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence.

I just -- I want to start with this. I respect both of your points of view. I don`t usually do the left box right box. I hate when people are yelling at each other. I just want to reserve the right that I`m going to mute the grandstanding offender. Got it? Because I`ve got a lot of questions that I want to avoid the spin and yelling. All right?

CHRIS COX, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Sounds good.

BECK: Agreed?

COX: Yes.

BECK: First of all, both of you agree that people should have the right to own guns?

COX: Yes.

Well, it`s interesting. It`s a constitutionally protected right, the self-defense and Second Amendment. It`s interesting that Paul says that he`s supportive of the Second Amendment when actions actually speak louder than words.

BECK: See now, Chris, look what you`ve done. Paul, explain your point of view, because you say it`s just certain people should have the right?

PAUL HELMKE, PRESIDENT, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: Well, Glenn, first of all, I just want to say thank you for having me on. I used to be mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana. You`ve got a lot of big fans out in Fort Wayne. Kathy Hawks and others have done a lot of things with you.

I just want to say people think very highly of you.

BECK: Come on, I will mute you in a second.

HELMKE: I`ve been on this job eight months. And I`m here because I`m trying to bring a common sense approach to guns. I`m trying to figure out how do we work with guns to make sure that they`re not getting into the wrong hands, to stop illegal trafficking in guns and to make our communities saver. And that`s where I`m trying to find middle ground.

BECK: OK. What is your middle ground?

HELMKE: My middle ground is that you certainly shouldn`t be selling guns to felons. You shouldn`t be selling them to people on the terrorist watch-list, and there are people that can get that now. You should be careful.

You should strengthen the ATF so they can crackdown on the rogue gun dealers, the corrupt gun dealers that are following the rules and are doing sales on straw purchase, allowing the guns to get in the community.

BECK: Chris.

COX: Yes.

BECK: What is he not telling me? Because this sounds reasonable. I`m for all of those things, and I`m a gun owner.

COX: What he`s not telling you is about core self-defense. This court case that you mentioned in Washington, D.C., came down and said that lawful honest people in Washington have a right to keep a gun in their home for self-defense.

Paul and his group are outraged by that ruling. Again, this is the difference between lawful gun owners who support the Second Amendment, who support law enforcement and their efforts to prosecute criminals.

And Paul is right. There should be a line drawn in the sand. And NRA will draw a bold one, and that`s between criminals and law abiding people. We feel that law abiding people aren`t a threat to anybody. Paul feels that everybody should be treated like a criminal.

BECK: Is that true, Paul?

HELMKE: It`s not true. And it`s something -- I believe in the Second Amendment, too. I just also want to make sure that we don`t forget the first 13 words to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the only one that has the word "regulated" in it, of all the amendments to the Constitution.

BECK: Yes, but there`s a difference between -- for instance, I live in New York City. I`m a gun owner. I`m not exactly in the least dangerous business. I`m not in the most dangerous business. In New York City, I can`t carry a gun. What happened to my right?

In Chicago, you can`t carry a gun. In Washington, you can`t. I`m a law abiding citizen.

COX: And then you ought to go run for city council, Glenn, or you ought to lobby your legislators to get the changes.

BECK: Wait a minute. Why? I have a right. You believe in a right, Paul, but it`s not everybody. Do you believe that the states have the right to do this, to make these laws?

HELMKE: Well, just as the court even here in D.C. said on Friday, there are reasonable restrictions that relate to public safety, that those are the important things.

And once you get to that, then the question is, who should be making those decisions? Activist judges are the folks that are elected by the people.

COX: Glenn -- Glenn, the last time I checked, Washington, D.C., is part of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights applies in Washington D.C. What this court said is that lawful people have a right to keep a loaded gun in their home for self-defense.

Washington, unfortunately, the nation`s capitol, is a scary place to live. It`s a dangerous city. For far too many years, it`s been the murder capitol of the U.S.

All of Paul`s gun control laws have done nothing to prevent crime in Washington. If they worked, gun control would be the savior of Washington. It would be the safest place to live.

I`d like Paul to answer the question that the court dealt with: do U.S. citizens have a right to keep a loaded gun including a handgun in their home to defend themselves from a criminal who breaks in?

HELMKE: The court decision Friday was a shocker to me, because it ignored nearly 70 years of precedent. The last time the United States Supreme Court spoke about this in 1939, they indicated that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to relate to the militia, relate to the common defenses by the state.

BECK: My show. I`m going to mute you two both in a second. I`ve got to tell you, Paul, that makes no sense. Why would the Founding Fathers -- wait a minute. Why would the Founding Fathers want to guarantee the right for the government to have guns? Our Founding Fathers were afraid of corrupt governments, not the people on the street.

HELMKE: Actually, if you read the court decision, there is a fascinating history, and this is where the court again went wrong on the history is, actually, the concern was that the standing army that was being created in the Constitution was going to overwhelm the state Militias, which is what we had under the Articles of Confederation.

That`s why, when James Madison did his first draft of the Second Amendment, he had a conscientious objector clause there. Why would you have a conscientious objector clause there if we were doing these things?

But the crucial issue is we need to figure out what will help make our community saver. I`m happy to sit down with Chris any time to figure out what are those reasonable restrictions.

BECK: Maybe we can make that happen on this program. I`d love to get you two in a room. I`ve got to run. Paul, Chris, thank you very much. We`ll have more on this on the radio program tomorrow.

Megatron
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
Talk about clueless! That commie/socialist POS Paul Helmke just doesn't get it.

GV00
03-15-2007, 04:03 PM
Well, Helmke certainly comes off as a better PR/speaker sort than Cox does in that.

Why? Because he had to slant things and sidestep the question with every response.
Cox, on the other hand, just had to point out the obvious. Pretty easy to do.

Has anyone done any research into the SC justices, in case this does go that far? Do any of them have a background that would clue us in on how they're likely to vote?

Medula Oblongata
03-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Well, as it turns out, conservatives were fooled with the appointment of Alito and Roberts.. They were both supposed to be big, strict, constitutionalists.. Yet their decision in the eminent domain issue was as liberal as things can go. They have also been extremely "big government" in a number of decisions relating to the USA Patriot Act, governmental accountability, 4th amendment protections, and forcing cattle ranchers to pay for ads in other states (where the rancher does NO business, and received NO benefit), as well as expanding the powers of legislators and the judiciary to use the "Interstate Commerce Clause" to apply it to nearly anything they wish.

So, if that is any indication, I'm not hopeful that they'll even hear the case; and should they I tremor at the thought of their rulings.. :(

Medula Oblongata
05-09-2007, 08:54 AM
Today the appellate court refused to reconsider their earlier ruling. Now the only recourse for the libtards in DC is to appeal to the Supreme Court... If the Supreme Court elects to hear the case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270873,00.html

merlin83221
05-09-2007, 12:53 PM
i want them to try and make me register my guns when i get them. i just read my state consitution. it says that i can never ever be required to register a firearm. that is one of the few things it says that can't be ammended. boyah. this is stupid what some cities are taking away peoples firearms.

susan28
05-09-2007, 01:25 PM
so if it doesn't go to SCOTUS, will this appellate court ruling be binding on Chicago and other cities, or will it have to go to SCOTUS for that?

Medula Oblongata
05-09-2007, 06:18 PM
The ruling was specific to DC, no other city ordinance was challenged. If it's upheld, or the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, it will become case history which could be used against Chicago and NY in arguments, although it would hold no weight of law. Its just another 'interesting' fact about something that happened somewhere else..