DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I caught a mention of it on CNN earlier, about 10 seconds long. I'm half-suprised (half-not) they don't have anything about this on their website AT ALL.

I'm watching Glenn Beck right now, hopefully he'll talk about it. Him and I seem to agree on almost everything I've heard him talk about.
 
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.

It doesn't get any better than this.
 
WATCH FOR EN BANC REVIEW

Remember, this was a three judge panel. The WHOLE of the court has the option of taking the matter up for secondary review en banc.

I haven't had a chance to read the beast yet, but on a skim it would appear to be one of the most detailed examinations of the issue to date by any CofA. If any case on the Second is SCT bound, it's this one. There is now a very clear split of authority. And the DC Circuit is well respected as a neutral and thoughtful arbiter among the federal courts of appeal.
 
On this appeal can they consider evidence not presented at trial? I would think, being a review of a decision rather than an assertion of error of fact, that the court en banc could only cover the admitted facts of the case from the original trial and appeal.

Which should, given how tortuous and illogical the dissent was, give the very well-presented and thought-out opinion a hammerlock unless the fix goes in.
 
Wow. Just wow. Who would have thought a Federal judge would have ever said "resistance to... the depredations of a tyrannical government" as a good thing? :what:

Now where do we send donations to help fund the plaintiff's appeals?
 
I understand that this was covered in the NBC Evening news tonight. I didn't see it but my wife told me it was covered. I am amazed but pleased that the media is reporting on it.
 
Supreme Court Nominees

Well, we know where to find a couple nominees for the Supreme Court!

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States: "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
 
You guys shouldnt be surprised about the libertarian/conservative leanings of the federal judicicary. The federalist society has been going strong for decades, churning out lots of really top notch judges.

Another thing most people havent noticed is that Clinton didnt really get to nominate a lot of judges due to the democratic derailment in the early 90s. Bush II, for all his failings, has nominated a lot of awesome judges to the federal judiciary. Reagan and Bush I also did a consistently good job getting conservative judges and lawyers into prominent positions. Alito and Roberts were both Reagan-era lawyers that later rose to prominence. If we can get someone decent in the white house from 2008 to 2016, there is a really good chance that we can get some awesome 2nd amendment decisions out of the suprme court, regardless of what happens this year.
 
so conservatives(with a libertarian love of the Bill Of Rights) ....DO EXIST!!!

God bless the six citizens that stood firm and brought the case forward. Thank you for working so hard for my Rights as well!!!

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
totally agree
 
Awesome, getting goosebumps reading the news.

I wish I had more legal background to figure how far this is going to go.
 
<a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/internet.nsf/Content/Stub+-+Biographical+Sketches+of+the+Judges+of+U.S.+Court+of+Appeals+for+the+DC+Circuit">US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit</a>

Douglas H Ginsberg - ?
David B Sentelle - ?
Karen Lecraft Henderson - anti-2A
A Raymond Randolph - ?
Judith W Rogers - ?
David S Tatel - ?
Merrick B Garland - ?
Janice Rogers Brown - pro-2A
Thomas B Griffith - pro-2A
Brett M Kavanaugh - ?
Harry T Edwards - ?
Laurence H Silberman - pro-2A
Stephen F Williams - ?
James L Buckley - ?

<a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf">SCOTUS</a>

John G Roberts, Jr - ?
John Paul Stevens - ?
Antonin Scalia - pro-2A
Anthony M Kennedy - ?
David Hackett Souter - anti-2A
Clarence Thomas - pro-2A
Ruth Bader Ginsberg - anti-2A
Stephen G Breyer - ?
Samual Anthony Alito Jr. - ?

Can others fill in the blanks?
 
posted by LAR-15: "It will be appealed and overturned"

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? :p
 
I wouldnt be so sure about that.

Solidly Pro RKBA-
Thomas- slips a pro RKBA dicta into any decision remotely related to firearms
Alito- see Rybar dissent
Roberts- see cofirmation discussion of Miller and Emerson/Silvieria circuit split
Scalia- see various things he has said and written over the years

Possible Pro RKBA-
Ginsburg- generally has a libertarian streak and is a big fan of individual rights that dont interfere with taxation and redistribution. Has said things that could portray her as either pro or anti RKBA. Probably anti-RKBA.
Kennedy- hasnt said anything recent in either particular direction. He is seems occaisionally aware that there is text in the constitution worth reading. Some hope, really dont know.

Probably Anti RKBA-
Stevens, Breyer, Souter- have at various times written strongly anti-gun opinions, but nothing quite as bad as the old "greatest fraud ever perpetrated" comment penned by Warren Burger.

The main problem for the antis is that all of the leading liberal authorities on the constitution have basically said "the 2nd means what it says" and all that remains at this point are a bunch of very convoluted and implausable arguments that try to bend the old lies to accommodate an openly hostile text. It's just too implausable at this point, especially for a supreme court justice that wants to be remembered well rather than remembered as the justice that was on the majority of the firearms equivalent of Dredd Scott or Plessy.
 
I like that movie too....

It would seem that the next Democrat in the white house will get to appoint at least one supreme court justice, unless Ginsberg takes a dirt nap soon. That will suck.
 
Looks like the Idaho AG office signing on to the Brady side was an error. The AG withdrew their support for the brief in August 2006:

Attorney General Wasden asked me to respond to your recent e-mail concerning the above referenced case. Idaho did sign on to this case. However, it was an error and once the error was discovered we withdrew on August 9, 2006. Please see the attached Notice of Withdrawal.

I hope this information is helpful.

http://vanfossen.org/Idaho_Withdrawl.pdf
 
A host of others we need to thank...

Stefan Tahmassebi - Congress of Racial Equality

Peter Ferrara - American Civil Rights Union

Robert Dowlut - NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund

AG offices from numerous states

Do NOT thank GHWB - who appointed the dissenter

Also actively opposed: AG office for (sigh) San Fransico and of course the our little buddies at the Brady Center.
 
Does anyone know how SCOTUS decides what cases to accept for review, and what not to accept? I would think that if the Justices that if it gets accepted, it has a good chance of a favorable outcome, and that if Justices that would like to see it get a favorable outcome don't think they have the votes, that they'll work to see that cert is denied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top