DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

[grampster]

I could never see any valid reason for the government knowing who has firearms.

If there was ever a valid reason to call up the militia, it would be because the security of a free state was in danger and whoever was endangering that freedom would soon find out who had firearms, the hard way. Which in my opinion, would be the best way.

The absence of the knowledge of who has arms carries the same weight as why one carries concealed. that absence of knowledge brings a measure of security.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Fox news just reported the decision at 1:30 pm mst .

 

[jlbraun]

@asknight

"I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?"

I say "Where's my government-issued M4 and 500 rounds of ammo, then? If the government gives out weapons, then of course they should know who has them."

 

[RealGun]

I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?

That premise for knowing who has guns would have little credibility, since the government uses other means to call up forces, ie. the NG. Even George Washington didn't value the ragtag militias. Commanders want trained and disciplined troops. Use of other armed people would likely be much more local.

 

[glummer]

asknight

I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?

“Do you still beat your wife?”
The argument ASSUMES that providing that information is always a good thing.
But, if militia service was required (i.e., needed) to OPPOSE government oppression, that would argue AGAINST providing the information. And that purpose is by far the more politically important function of the militia.

 

[Titan6]

Contact Information For Silberman's Office

Snail Mailing Address

Senior Judge Silberman
DC Court of Appeals
333 Constitution Ave
NW Washington DC 20001

Phone to Silberman's Clerk
(202) 216-7353 (I think it is about 3PM there now).

Email Could not find.

Please thank him for his service to our country in the name of Freedom and let him know that we appreciate what he is doing for us. I would also start throwing out his name if you are in a political party. He is likely too old to serve on the SCOTUS but dam he sure could help us if he were up there.

 

[latecomer]

Glummer,

Exactly right.

This "registration rationale" point is the only weak argument I saw in the first pass reading of the opinion. Otherwise, bang on...

 

[Danus ex]

Thank you mail sent to Minnesota's Attorney General's office. Mike Hatch is no longer the AG, however.

 

[rmgill]

So what's the next step after the DC Court of Appeals? The 4th or SCOTUS?

 

[MacEntyre]

I could never see any valid reason for the government knowing who has firearms.

It would be far easier if we had un-infringed rights, and the govt could just assume that we all have firearms.

 

[carebear]

Even then, the type and level of registration would be fought over in Congress. It was given as an example, not a requirement.

A preemptive strike would be to pass a law to, in order to conform to the concept of "unorganized militia", consider the existing Selective Service registration list (and all previous names on it still alive) as prima facia "militia registration" and be done with it (an additional list to be added, for those not required to register, as "volunteers"), with no individual weapons listing required as the militia would be armed/rearmed upon activation from existing armories in any event (as is the collective rights position anyway).

In essence, restate with finality that if you are a citizen, you are part of the militia, if we need you, we'll call and we'll give you a rifle at that time so you can operate effectively. Other than that, what you own is your business.

 

[shield20]

I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?

The unorganized militia as recognized by the Federal govt has no provision for being used in the current statutes. There is NO reason for them to register the people's guns, as that is no longer a primary reason for the 2nd's protecting the right to keep and bear arms. They want to start handing out the M4s - I will sign up.

the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

There are no "limitations" on the the RIGHT to free speech, only ON THE WAY THAT RIGHT IS USED. The only limitations on the 2nd should be similiar - i.e. use it illegally, and I can be charged through due process.

For instance...I don't lose the right to free speech when I go into a theater, it is just illegal to yell "fire". So I shouldn't lose the right to keep and bear arms on school grounds, it is just illegal to use one to shoot somebody.

 

[carebear]

So what's the next step after the DC Court of Appeals? The 4th or SCOTUS?

The full body of the DC District Court (this was a 3-person sub-panel) and then straight to the Supremes.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Back in the times of the founding, the .gov was much more interested in who didn't have guns than who did.

They needed to know how many guns to buy for the common stores, so they could sign them out to the poor.

Dead Seriously.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So what's the next step after the DC Court of Appeals?

The next step is a petition for an en banc rehearing of the case by the entire D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This was just a panel decision of 3 judges. It is still binding precedent for now; but the en banc ciourt can overrule the panel. However, in the vast (and I mean like 99%) majority of cases, the en banc DC upholds the panel decision. This is a well-crafted decision, so I don't think the result would be any different here.

If the petition for en banc rehearing is denied, then the government can (and probably will) appeal to the Supreme Court. If the petition is granted, then the losing side can appeal to the Supreme Court after the en banc court issues a decision.

If four Justices vote to hear the case, then the Supreme Court hears the case. Generally they won't hear cases unless there is a split in the law amongst the various circuits (which we have). However, in really touchy areas (like the Second Amendment), they may ignore splits in the law so long as they don't produce any split in the practical result. Here there is still no split in the practical result; but I think there will be four judges willing to hear this case if it goes that far.

 

[Flyboy]

I think this is one of the first times the reason of registration was to provide information to the Govt about how many people would be armed if militia service was required has been voiced so loudly. I don't think it's a valid reason, but a reason that has been getting some air time lately.

What say you?

I say Switzerland has an outstanding solution to the problem.

 

[JLowe]

I say Switzerland has an outstanding solution to the problem.

So does Kennesaw, GA.

It's already been said but it's worth repeating - Rather than trying to identify who is armed, the government should only be able to believe that everyone is armed.

 

[Rumble]

Maybe nobody else will find this interesting, but it is to me. Notice how on the same day that the court upholds the rights of the individual we discover that the FBI overstepped its bounds with regards to the Patriot Act.

Oddly enough, it's also the day that 300 opens in theaters. That doesn't mean anything, of course, but I can imagine some creepy music right now.

I haven't read the opinion, but what I have read of it says exactly the same things that we here on THR say to each other--and anyone who is inclined to listen to actual reason . It's immensely rewarding to see something from the bench that says "it means what it says."

 

[glummer]

Am I reading this right?

But [the dissenting opinion's] other main point is that the majority's assertion [...] 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.

The DISSENTER is saying the Second Amendment's protections definitely DO extend to the States?
Wow!
That's potentially as important as the majority decision, isn't it?

 

[Titan6]

Well I guess Marion Barry has gotten his wish. Let us hope it lasts longer than 90 days.

 

[Cliff47]

The Brady group complaining about 'judicial activism', sounds like they just got their sacred cow gored, big time. I love it when a plan comes together. Nice, very nice.

We shall see how it holds up under appeal.

 

[Titan6]

Judicial Activism 2007 = Enforcing the Constitution


I don't know to laugh or cry....

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I would suggest we take a few minutes and read this decision. It is a literal work of art...

I love this Judge, I love Ronald Reagan, but most of all I LOVE FREEDOM and the ability to protect it.

YMMV but I think we will remember this day and tell our grandchildren ... God Bless America.

 

[F4GIB]

Sound legal discussion available here.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#117346944

 

[denfoote]

This is indeed great news.
However, I cannot shake the gut feeling it will somehow be suppressed!!
The elites cannot and will not allow armed peasents in their own back yard!!
Remember, the Second Amendmant is not just about self defense!!