The Nightstar Zoo
http://zoo.nightstar.net/

Well, well, well.
http://zoo.nightstar.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=15958
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Animal [ Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Well, well, well.

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]

Author:  Bookworm [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:08 am ]
Post subject: 

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

Author:  Dark_Tiger [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  Animal [ Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

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."

Author:  Ogredude [ Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:44 am ]
Post subject: 

I hope they end up re-evaluating US vs Miller 1939.

Author:  Bookworm [ Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

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

Author:  Dark_Tiger [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  Bookworm [ Sun May 04, 2008 3:41 am ]
Post subject: 

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

Author:  bizzybody [ Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Well, well, well.

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.

Author:  Animal [ Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Well, well, well.

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.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/