The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Well, well, well.
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:39 pm 
From here. I'll try to run down a more solid source.

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

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.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her 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.

This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.

Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."

Edit: [url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/09/D8NOSR480.html\]Better source.[/url]


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:08 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
Ooooh, I hope this holds up. If it does, we'll be doing better. Even if all that happens is they start having to drop bans on weaponry produced _in_ a state (They can regulate interstate commerce, for example), it would be a bonus. Although the Mormons in Utah would have a big advantage :)

BW

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:05 pm 
The question was specifically about the D.C. law, which bans ALL arms, not specific kinds of weapons or even just all firearms. It's also about as useful as a choclate teakettle.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:55 pm 
Dark_Tiger wrote:
It's also about as useful as a choclate teakettle.


No. It has much more far-reaching implications, should this go to the Supreme Court; namely, that the Court could once and for all define the Second Amendment as an individual right, and silence the bullshit about it only "applying to the National Guard."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:44 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
I hope they end up re-evaluating US vs Miller 1939.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:04 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
Actually, the Circuit Court determined that it WAS an individual right. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, the ruling stands, and it becomes a FIRM precedent. If they hear it, they're going to have to fight REALLY hard against all the research done by the lower court to twist it to a new meaning.

BW

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:33 pm 
Animal wrote:
Dark_Tiger wrote:
It's also about as useful as a choclate teakettle.


No. It has much more far-reaching implications, should this go to the Supreme Court; namely, that the Court could once and for all define the Second Amendment as an individual right, and silence the bullshit about it only "applying to the National Guard."


Just flipping through, I meant that the D.C. law was useless as there is nothing keeping you from carring in VA or MD and as such, nothing really keeping anyone from having a gun in the greater D.C. area. D.C. proper is less that ten miles square but bedroom communities for D.C. stretch from Richmond to Baltimore.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:41 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:39 pm
Posts: 316
Here's the transcript of the March 18th hearing.

Dellinger put his foot in his mouth a couple of times, that's for sure.

I can't say that the Justices were 100% on the 'Right to keep and bear arms' with the 'shall not be abridged' part, but they didn't seem terribly friendly to the idea of a total ban.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-290.pdf

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------
I'll get a life when it is proven and substantiated to be better than what I am currently experiencing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Well, well, well.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:44 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
The next step will be declaring the 1934 National Firearms Act unconstitutional, and thus nullifying US vs Miller 1939, as well as all other gun laws that depend on the 1934 NFA.

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Well, well, well.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:26 am 
bizzybody wrote:
The next step will be declaring the 1934 National Firearms Act unconstitutional, and thus nullifying US vs Miller 1939, as well as all other gun laws that depend on the 1934 NFA.


Don't count on it. The next Congress as well as the next President are likely to be very unfriendly to gun owners. The next couple of Supreme Court appointments, as well.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group