D.C. Court of Appeals denies en banc hearing in Parker

[Trebor]

There is nothing that will ever *end* the gun control debate and even with a favorable Supreme Court ruling we'll still have other anti-gun battles to fight. A ruling that found that the 2A is an individual right though would shift the momentum in our favor in a big way.

We'd still have a fight with the anti's, but they would have to justify any gun-control measures against a higher standard if the 2A is foudn to be an individual right. Meanwhile pro-2A supporters could file Federal and State suits across the country to try and chip away at the existing legislation.

There is no telling how everything would shake out in the end as the whole process will take years. Odds are though, that it would be a more favorable landscape for gun rights then we currently have.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

We'd still have a fight with the anti's, but they would have to justify any gun-control measures against a higher standard if the 2A is foudn to be an individual right. Meanwhile pro-2A supporters could file Federal and State suits across the country to try and chip away at the existing legislation.

True, there will always be some guy who thinks nukes should under the 2A, so there is still some fight left

 

[RealGun]

The idea of taking Parker to the top court gives me a nervous rash.

Kelo didn't work out like handicappers predicted.

Yes, that case puts a pall on everything, declaring that there is no justice. I wouldn't be high fiving it simply because SCOTUS accepted the case.

 

[.cheese.]

I say let it go to the SCOTUS. I feel confident enough in my interpretation of it that things will go our way.

 

[Waitone]

I say let it go to the SCOTUS. I feel confident enough in my nterpretation of it that things will go our way.

I wish I could be as enthusiastic about its prospects. We are faced with court members who consider the constitution to be a living breathing document all the while paying a mortgage based on contract law. Strangely enough the group of jurists also have no problem with consulting other nations, governments, and constitutions searching for light to interpret our constitution. We may be snapping our suspenders but those who control the game know good and well that once the case is in their control, they own the ball, game, rules, and outcome. We may well find ourselves with no game in which to play after one really bad and unfortunate ruling.

Nothing is more sacrosanct to America and Americans as the right to own private property yet with one ruling the courts has effectively done away with said private property. If the courts can attack with impunity probably the popular doctrine in law, how easy will it be to attack a provision of the constitution which has been socially marginalized?

There's a bad moon on the rise.

 

[Leatherneck]

The local chatter around D.C. is along the lines of: "Well even if the individual right view is affirmed, there are still many things we can do to ensure citizen safety"

Maybe such an atmosphere will convince the Supremes to grant cert. and affirm the individual right interpretation; I don't know. But I don't think they'll grant cert. and interpret 2A as a collective right--the mood of the country isn't in that direction now, thank goodness.

TC

 

[Titan6]

What are they waiting on? Why don't they go ahead and assure everyone's safety now?

 

[jpk1md]

Its Fox/MSM so take it with a grain of salt....

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


Appeals Court Refuses to Reconsider D.C. Gun Ban Ruling

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider a ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun control law, setting up a potential showdown in the Supreme Court over the Second Amendment.

The decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit comes nearly two months after a three-judge panel rejected the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to state militias.

The panel ruled 2-1 that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms keep them unloaded and disassembled.

The decision marked the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a portion of a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

The city has 90 days to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court, which could hear arguments as soon as this winter if it decides to hear the case, said Alan Gura, an attorney for the six plaintiffs.

"This case obviously has about a good a chance as any of making it to the Supreme Court," Gura said.

"We believe we'll prevail," he said.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said he was disappointed in the ruling and that the city would review its options before deciding what to do next.

Opponents of the city's gun ban say it prevents people from taking measures to protect themselves and their families. They say the high crime rates in the three decades that the laws have been on the books prove the restrictions are ineffective.

Fenty said losing the restrictions would be a blow to crime-fighting efforts. The city logged 169 homicides last year, down from 196 in 2005.

Washington and Chicago are the only two major U.S. cities with sweeping handgun bans. D.C.'s ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976 and will remain in effect while the case is being appealed.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said he was disappointed in the ruling and that the city would review its options before deciding what to do next.

Possibly code words for: We are getting pressure from the Democratic leadership to reconsider, as they dont want this going to SCOTUS.

Dont be surprised if they switch to a NYC system.

 

[glummer]

Weasel words

… claim by Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: "The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia.

Well, yeah, they ARE linked; the militia in a “free state” depends on an armed citizenry.
It is the individual right which gives the militia its proper character.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Without it, you have just another version of a standing army, like the NG.

Yes, I think the NG as it is now is a joke. They arent 'guarding' anything 'national' - more like the International Guard. We need to go back to the old militia system.

 

[Titan6]

Ratz- We can not go back to something we still have. Many states have militias.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

We can not go back to something we still have. Many states have militias.

Yes Ohio included. Back to USING them then.

 

[eric.cartman]

Well, I hope it goes to SCOTUS, and it goes our way.

HOWEVER!
For all of you speculating when "enough is enough"... is SCOTUS scre*s us over, we know it's time to defend the republic once again

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Well, I hope it goes to SCOTUS, and it goes our way.

HOWEVER!
For all of you speculating when "enough is enough"... is SCOTUS scre*s us over, we know it's time to defend the republic once again

I'd say the country is the most pro-gun it has been since the Truman (I recall his praise of the CMP - "great in a free society") and Eisenhower presidencies. Whether or not it will stay that way remains to be seen.

 

[Gifted]

This test is most most frequently employed involving the First Amendment, the supreme individual right. It asks about the goverment's request to prohibit an activity to see if it poses a clear and present danger of resulting in damage to a legitimate government interest.

Also, they have to prove that the law will actually do what it's supposed to. There's strong correlary evidence that gun control actually makes crime worse, which means that it stands a chance of being denied.

 

[madmike]

I hate to chastise, but quotes like this:

The Supremes don't like to rock the boat unless there is a clear direction the country is heading down, in which case they just see themselves as hurrying along the inevitable.

The SCOTUS does not want to toss thousands of local and state laws out. It is just not something they want to be forced to do,

Strike me as paranoid. There ain't no effing conspiracy. The Justices are appointed for life for a reason--so they can decide without worrying about repercussions.

LS: There are federal laws on marijuana. Fed trumps state. Read your Constitution.

The 2A IS NOT federal law. It is a Constitutional provision that has not yet been defined in court.

The two cases are neither similar nor a sign of a conspiracy.

a loss for us in SCOTUS would be disastrous.

No, it would give us exactly what we have now.

I swear, the "Oh noes, we might LOSE!!!" mentality REALLY ticks me off. Why do you people bother carrying guns against criminals? You might lose. Why not just avoid the confrontation? That would be MUCH safer. Give the crook a bit of money here, a little sex there...is it REALLY something you want to fight over?:banghead:

@#$ING A RIGHT IT IS!

I have a lot of respect for the Second Amendment Foundation, but that statement from Mr. Gottlieb id disappointing.

Read the decision. The decision said they had to allow people to register and own guns. He's stating they must comply. He could demand they start selling fully automatic revolvers from ice cream trucks, but there was no decision to that effect. He's doing marketing.

candidates will have to sound off on the individual v. collective rights issue. With some of the key battleground states being Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it will be near political suicide to support a collective rights view of the Second Amendment,

So they'll lie. What else is new?

In the case of MGs, I dont mind registration as I dont want MGs to start to become as common as snub-nose .38s.

I do. Why don't you? Common = legitimate to most people.

True, there will always be some guy who thinks nukes should under the 2A, so there is still some fight left

Of course they should. Only a left wing statist pig would argue otherwise.

But in the spirit of compromise, I'll drop my argument (for now) if you compromise and allow me to buy brand new M2 .50s and M240s

 

[AntiqueCollector]

LS: There are federal laws on marijuana. Fed trumps state. Read your Constitution.

The powers of the feds are very limited in the Constitution. Limited to the postal service, common defense, tarriffs and not much else. They tried (and succeeded) at arguing that the interstate commerce clause, giving the feds the ability to regulate interstate commerce, gives them the ability to regulate activities within a state, such as an individual growing some plants. Now, if you believe that is a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution, I don't know what to say.

 

[madmike]

Doesn't matter whether you or I think it's legitimate.

The courts do.

End of discussion.

I support CA entirely in this on a moral basis (Did I actually JUST SAY THAT? ) but legally they had no leg to stand on.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quote:
candidates will have to sound off on the individual v. collective rights issue. With some of the key battleground states being Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it will be near political suicide to support a collective rights view of the Second Amendment,

So they'll lie. What else is new?

Politicians lying is no news; but the Supreme Court doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum. If all of the Presidential candidates, the Department of Justice, a majority of Congress, and around 76% of Americans are saying that the Second Amendment is an individual right, then it is always problematic for nine people to say "No, you're wrong" and overrule that sentiment. This isn't just a recent trend either - Congress has been saying this going back to 1986 (FOPA) and the executive branch has been saying it since 2000 (and prior to federal gun control efforts as well). The American public has always felt this way (the 76% figure comes from polling by gun control groups like AGS arguing that this is a bad battle for gun control to fight).

Having all the major Presidential candidates agreeing with an individual rights outlook - even if purely for selfish reasons - certainly won't hurt our chances. It will also be an opportunity for us to press those politicians to commit to specific positions that they will have trouble backing away from later. Example: If the Second Amendment is an individual right, then (do you/how can you) support XXXX? What will you do to (further/block) that policy?

 

[Sam Adams]

Illspirit

If SCOTUS upholds the registration language from Parker as a legitimate state interest (to wit: knowing which militia members are prepared to muster), would simply re-opening the MG registry as opposed to dumping the entire NFA be that bad? The main argument against registration has always been that it will (and did) lead to confiscation during a future ban. But if total bans are ruled illegal, wouldn't the potential, subsequent confiscations become illegal as well?

IMHO, if Parker is upheld then the MG ban is the next domino to fall - it is a strictly federal ban on the registration of new guns, pretty much exactly the same as the DC ban. Possibly a very important consideration is that it bans the registration of newly-manufactured, but otherwise identical, versions of guns already registered and in the hands of the public. How can it be defended? And once you have lots more of the older model full autos out there, how can you deny the ability of civilians to own post-'86 developed guns that are functionally identical to those already registered?

More importantly, even if the NFA is retained (as, for example, "reasonable regulation") but the registry is opened up, tell me how in the Hell is any government going to collect 1 million or 2 million or 5 million full autos from people who don't want to give them up? As it is, with only 200,000 FAs and some 250 million semi-autos, rimfires, bolties, pump actions & lever actions, the Feds won't try it because they can't succeed. Don't you think that the Clintons would have tried it if it was even reasonably possible? Add some real muscle to our side of the equation, and there's no way it'll ever happen. The Founders would be very happy knowing that We the People can tell the Feds to stuff it.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Of course they should. Only a left wing statist pig would argue otherwise.

Sigh, I knew there would be an absolutist arguing me. You do realize the supreme court would never agree with you on this right? I think it makes our cause look bad when we argue that nukes are covered under the 2A.

I will be happy with small arms (from bolt actions to machine guns) for the moment. Destructive devises, perhaps too (Ill have a Pak40 guarding my house ).

 

[roscoe]

So how does this apply to the 'bear' part of keep and bear arms?

 

[Chad]

I have a lot of respect for the Second Amendment Foundation, but that statement from Mr. Gottlieb is disappointing.

Read the decision. The decision said they had to allow people to register and own guns. He's stating they must comply. He could demand they start selling fully automatic revolvers from ice cream trucks, but there was no decision to that effect. He's doing marketing.

madmike:
I read the decision. A few times.
The wording is irrelevant.

And I don't recall suggesting anyone make absurd demands.

Anyone I would support needs to do more than give a nod to a thrown bone.

This is only a good thing in so far as what may come out of it in the future, SCOTUS, etc.

It doesn't really do all that much for DC residents.
Sure, the ruling would allow them to possess a firearm, eventually, after going through what I can't imagine would be simple, breeze-through process.

From an individual's perspective in DC, this is progress?
Would you be satisfied if you had to face this to possess a gun?

I could understand SAF laying low, making statements that this decision was a good step, and getting ready for the next fight.

But to make a statement that in essence accepts the licensing and registration requirements is unacceptable and, as I said, disappointing.

I've been giving the SAF a thorough look to see if this was another organization I wanted to support and get involved with.
After that statement I see I have to look longer and closer.

 

[madmike]

Well, Chad, they could encourage DC residents to buy machine guns. Would that make you feel better about "Where they stand"?

The problem is, they'd be encouraging people to violate the law. Not a useful tactic.

You're right. Having to register a gun in DC is outrageous and evil. The whole case was a waste of time. And since the court wasn't going to let them carry machine guns, the only solution is just for everyone in DC who cares about 2A to arm up and START SHOOTING THE OPPRESSORS.

Yeah, good luck with that.

People who deal in all or nothing scenarios rarely get it all. That means they get nothing.

And if SAF demanding that DC comply with the court's ruling bothers you, I suggest no group on the planet is going to satisfy you, except for that whole START A REVOLUTION thing.

Go right ahead. I'll sit back here and watch.

PS: JPFO and GOA are left wing, too.:banghead:

And if you don't recognize the "fully automatic revolver" comment, you need to read around a bit more on this forum.