commentary here:
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153
I haven't seen any MSM outlets report on it yet.
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153
I haven't seen any MSM outlets report on it yet.
DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS
- Thread starter balletto
- Start date
- Status
Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
The MSM hasn't reported it? I'm SHOCKED, shocked I tell ya!
So...what now I wonder?
DC Court Upholds 2nd Ammendment
from Macsmind Blog, http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/
Polishing the Glock in DC - DC Court upholds Second Amendment
Posted by Macranger on March 9th, 2007
Another victory for the 2nd Amendment, via How Appealing:
“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.”
Read it again, “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”.
This is HUGE for gun rights and a devastating blow for gun control advocates who consitantly try to erode our right to bear arms.
Let it reverb across the land.
Here is the .pdf of the actual Circuit Court Ruling:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
from Macsmind Blog, http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/
Polishing the Glock in DC - DC Court upholds Second Amendment
Posted by Macranger on March 9th, 2007
Another victory for the 2nd Amendment, via How Appealing:
“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.”
Read it again, “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”.
This is HUGE for gun rights and a devastating blow for gun control advocates who consitantly try to erode our right to bear arms.
Let it reverb across the land.
Here is the .pdf of the actual Circuit Court Ruling:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Spartacus451
Member
Wow
There is going to be a lot of pressure on the supreme court to hear this case right? Could this be the showdown we have been waiting for/dreading?
There is going to be a lot of pressure on the supreme court to hear this case right? Could this be the showdown we have been waiting for/dreading?
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
Wow!
For years I've had to deal with antis insisting that no court has ever overturned a law for violating the 2A.
Not anymore!
For years I've had to deal with antis insisting that no court has ever overturned a law for violating the 2A.
Not anymore!
General Geoff
Member
If this ruling sticks/is upheld in any appeals, we may not have to worry about HR1022 anyway. Because even if it does pass, the first court ruling to challenge it would have it struck down as unconstitutional.
Win-win.
Win-win.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
This is fabulous news! Thank you for reporting on it for us. The decision will make good bedtime reading tonight.
Last edited:
It's not April 1st, is it? 
bill larry
Member
Soon to be gunstores in DC?
This makes me warm and fuzzy all over.
This makes me warm and fuzzy all over.
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
General Geoff
Member
This aught to be made a sticky...
30 cal slob
Member
just got off the phone with nra-ila and they confirmed it is for real!
(but witholding official comment until later naturally).
(but witholding official comment until later naturally).
Gene_WI
Member
This is Fantastic. Will DC appeal the decision and take to the Supreme court.
AZTOY
Member
WOW!!!
FieroCDSP
Member
Should the Supreme Court uphold this (assuming they deal with it), That would set precedent against bans for Chicago, Detroil, LA, etc, right? I like the wording. It's clear, concise, and deals with almost everything it can. However, I don't see HR 1022 going away because this doesn't set precedent on what kinds of firearms are considered for HD, sporting, hunting, SD, etc. They can still revise 1022 to say that you're only allowed to own single-shot firearms, which are almost useless in SD/HD situations, and this thing will not touch it. We shouldn't panic, but should still be worried. This is a good ruling, but not perfect.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Wow, you could knock me over with a feather. I would never in a million years have picked the D.C. Circuit panel to be the next court to declare an individual right in the Second Amendment. Even better, there appears to be no potential to argue that this is just dicta so the opinion is binding on future panels.
I am more skeptical than Professor Volokh regarding the chances the Supreme Court hears this though. There is a split in the law; but there is no split in the actual result. No other circuit has a federal handgun ban and D.C. has yet to invalidate any other federal laws, so the practical effect is the same as Emerson. Different approaches, same result.
Still, this is huge. We are going to see the Supreme Court address this issue in our lifetime and probably within the next eight years. Just thinking about it makes my stomach churn... right now I can only come up with 4 pro-gun votes on the Court and even some of them might change sides if the result was too radical. We really, really need to replace some Justices. Stevens is a definite anti and is 87 years old. That single appointment could be the difference in the whole thing.
O yeah... judge breakdown:
Two judges for individual: Appointed by Reagan and GWB.
Judge for collective: Appointed by GHWB.
I am more skeptical than Professor Volokh regarding the chances the Supreme Court hears this though. There is a split in the law; but there is no split in the actual result. No other circuit has a federal handgun ban and D.C. has yet to invalidate any other federal laws, so the practical effect is the same as Emerson. Different approaches, same result.
Still, this is huge. We are going to see the Supreme Court address this issue in our lifetime and probably within the next eight years. Just thinking about it makes my stomach churn... right now I can only come up with 4 pro-gun votes on the Court and even some of them might change sides if the result was too radical. We really, really need to replace some Justices. Stevens is a definite anti and is 87 years old. That single appointment could be the difference in the whole thing.
O yeah... judge breakdown:
Two judges for individual: Appointed by Reagan and GWB.
Judge for collective: Appointed by GHWB.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Absolutely Amazing.... I can't type I'm jumping up and down so much!!!!!!!
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Not necessarily. This struck down a federal law. The bans you list are all state bans.
The 14th Amendment allows the feds to strike down state laws that violate the Constitution IF those rights are "incorporated" under the doctrine of selective incorporation. The only case to address this issue for the Second Amendment is Cruikshank. Cruikshank says that the Second is only a restraint on the feds and not the states. This argument came after the 14th Amendment had been ratified; but before the doctrine of selective incorporation was adopted, so nobody really knows how it would play out today. You can make good arguments both ways.
As for what else it might effect, there is no way of telling right now.
NickEllis
Member
Stunned... I can't stop chuckling at my computer screen.
This is massive.
This is massive.
- Status
