DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

[armoredman]

The cork has popped, and the genie is out. Schumer, Fienslime, and the rest have just wet thier pants. Amen.

 

[Titan6]

It is morning in America Again!

This is completely fantastic!!!!

I never, ever would have thought and in DC!!!!...

Who appointed those judges?

Does anyone know? They are heros!!!!

We need to follow this up with big thank you letters and emails of support for this courageous decision.

Maybe there is hope for America after all...

 

[duckslayer]

Wow, thanks for posting. It made my bad day a little better!

 

[rbernie]

WOOOOO HOOOOO!

 

[Titan6]

Question?

How will this effect all those in prison and convicted felons of gun charges from DC?

 

[NickEllis]

You just KNOW the anti's are going to start weighing in, and HARD. One of the major problem in America is the vocal minority and the silent majority.

How do we make our voice known and heard in support of this ruling, to somehow counterballance the indignant voices of the other side?

I have been encouraged by the outpouring of antagonism against HR1022; I wish we could use our voice in support of positive things like this ruling.

Yes, and who appointed those judges??!!

 

[gego]

Sounds like it is good, but I will take a wait and see attitude, given the ability of judges, lawyers, and politicians to manipulate just about anything.

Can someone explain what the deal was with the anti's arguing that the 2nd amendment did not apply to the law because DC was not a state.

 

[Mr. James]

Interesting question, Titan6, since the vast, vast majority of those convicted defendants were charged for carrying concealed and/or during the commission of other crimes.

The Court notes in the Parker case that the appellees "are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes."

If this were to stand, would it only apply to firearms kept in the home? Sounds that way.

 

[jlbraun]

There are 2 places we can get screwed: the full en banc hearing (that is, the entire DC Circuit court hearing, not just three justices), and the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS looks very narrow. Here's hoping a justice retires and we get one more pro-rights judge if this goes to SCOTUS.

 

[The Law]

Rule of Four for granting Cert. Either way this breaks down, it is very likely to see review in the Supreme Court. I'll be watching this one.

I've printed the opinion to read later.

 

[ctdonath]

No other circuit has a federal handgun ban

There is, however, a federal machinegun ban.

Helloooooo, M4...

 

[cmidkiff]

There's a gunny on that court

just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol.

Where have I heard _that_ argument before

Man, this just made my day. In a few weeks, it may very well make my YEAR!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is, however, a federal machinegun ban.

Which every circuit (including the 5th) has upheld so far. However, if we could get D.C. to strike down the machinegun ban too, that would be a start. I would then be absolutely convinced I had finally returned from Bizarro world to a place where English is interpreted in a rational and plain manner.

 

[NickEllis]

"I would then be absolutely convinced I had finally returned from Bizarro world to a place where English is interpreted in a rational and plain manner."


BR, you continually make me grateful you moderate on this site.

 

[Henry Bowman]

One of the major problem in America is the vocal minority [with their allies, the MSM] and the silent majority.

The Court notes in the Parker case that the appellees "are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes."

If this were to stand, would it only apply to firearms kept in the home? Sounds that way.

Correct. One step at a time.

 

[Seminole]

Excellent!

This is, however, just the first battle in what will be a long and hard-fought war that won't be over until we can legally CCW down Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[SWMAN]

This decision just says D.C. can't ban residents having weapons in their homes. It doesn't necessarily follow that DC can't regulate weapons. Infringment means an act can't be passed that disregards a right. So, DC can't pass a law that bans residents from having weapons. Can they pass a law that regulates were residents can and cannot take their arms?

 

[madmike]

Don't be too sure

That liberals are anti-2A

“Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a
firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (‘keep
and bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in
a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998)
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,
and Souter, J.)

Emphasis mine

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think the best way to paraphrase this decision is to quote from Ted Kennedy, Sarah Brady, VPC, etc.

"It is a good first step..."

 

[carlrodd]

This decision just says D.C. can't ban residents having weapons in their homes. It doesn't necessarily follow that DC can't regulate weapons. Infringment means an act can't be passed that disregards a right. So, DC can't pass a law that bans residents from having weapons. Can they pass a law that regulates were residents can and cannot take their arms?

like somebody said...one step at a time. i'll take baby steps over no steps at all.....and this is far from a baby step.

 

[madmike]

This, plus Emerson, are very good basis to insist that NOT ALL guns can be banned.

No, that's not ideal. But it is SIGNIFICANT.

It's also a good legal argument against banning CCW or possession of handguns, since that latter is what it accomplished here.

Moron Grove, NYC and Shicago should take note.

 

[Eightball]

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).

I don't see anything about a "sporting purposes" clause.....maybe THEY"RE GETTING THE POINT???

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

The cork has popped, and the genie is out.

Absolutely. But when I read your post, the lyrics from a Don Henley song popped into my mind:

You can't get the genie back in the bottle.. You can't get the genie back in the bottle..

At the very least we can end the unending debate on 2A. I just hope it comes out our way. Justice should be ours, but unfortunately we have to go through the legal system (since we have no justice system).

BTW the judge who wrote the majority opinion was appointed by .... Ronald Reagan. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[Linda]

We have the link to the 75 page ruling on our website!

Great news indeed!!!

http://http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3589.html

 

[geekWithA.45]

What is best in life? Conan knows!

"To crush our enemies, to see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of DiFi, Boxer, Schumer, Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, and all the rest of their toxic ilk."