Federal Court Upholds DC Hand Gun Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beren

Beren

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
2,384
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gun-Law.html?ex=1075142741&ei=1&en=550cdbd9f7f91793

Federal Court Upholds DC Hand Gun Ban
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 14, 2004

Filed at 11:26 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Advertisement

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

``The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,'' Walton wrote.

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

A gun control advocate welcomed the ruling.

``It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more,'' said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center.

Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling on Wednesday night but noted that other courts have taken the opposite opinion.
 
Judges are interpreting the Constitution to mean anything that will meet their anti-gun agenda. The right of the citizens be damned. The model city for gun bans has proven to be a disaster, yet the judges and legislators keep doing the same things over and over hoping for different results.:banghead:
 
Okay, let me see if I've got this right......

The 2nd applies to state militias, not individuals.

But, it was intended to protect citizens against an oppressive government, or so says the court in this case.

So, um, how exactly does the amendment protect citizens against an oppressive government if uh, you know, the individual citizens can't like, you know, um, own guns????????

Talk about Orwellian doublespeak.

You have the constitutional right to defend yourself against oppressive governments, but you do not have the consitutional right to actually own the tools needed for that defense.

You may not see Major Major when he is in his tent. You may only see Major Major when he is out of his tent.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

hillbilly
 
Isn't this the case we had a lively discussion about some time ago? Incrementalist fans (Halbrook in this case); vs. "absolutists" (Lucas/Silviera) IIRC. This case was supposed to be so much better as a test case? Next strategy?
 
``The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,'' Walton wrote.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of something listed on the 40 reasons for gun control:

#14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.
 
Brett Bellmore is correct. Halbrook et. al fully expected the case to go against them at this level. In fact, that may have been part of their strategy -- you can't appeal to the SC unless you've lost in a lower court.
 
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.
Click to expand...

So I guess the other Amendments don't apply to DC as well then?

Well, it is a short path to the U.S. Supreme Court from here and that is where this one was headed from the beginning.

This case was supposed to be so much better as a test case? Next strategy?
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody here harbored any illusions about where this case was going in the Federal court district that rules DC; but some of the reasons this was considered a better case is because the issue is more narrow and the path to the Supreme Court shorter. This is the beginning of this case - not the end.
 
The USSC will not hear the case. They have already decided not to settle this issue.

I heard an interesting comment last week. I heard the USSC refused to hear the Silva case because they knew there wasn't enough support to overturn it. And it was agreed by the USSC to not take the case because they felt the final decision was going to cause severe unrest within the Pro-2A sector of the US.

I think the USSC was trying to tell us we are wrong in their (5:4) opinion.
 
NorthernExtreme,

Where/from whom did you hear that? Was it the speculation of a buddy, or did you hear it from someone who actually might know such things. :)
 
No, it was not a "better"case.

As usual, the NRa attorneys took a clear cut 2nd amendment issue & muddied it with other issues. & let's be honest - how convincing can you argue that the 2nd is an individual Right when in the same breath you say registration & such are hunky dory???

Oh, you weren't aware that the attorneys in the NRA's DC challenge were saying that registration was okay? Not something you'd broadcast if you were in the NRA PR department is it?

But the "better" case is a challenge to the same DC gun ban that was launched by two lawyers from CATO prior to the NRA's case. In fact the NRA tried to get the two cases joined but the guys from CATO raised enough hell about it that the judge denied the NRA's motion to join.

CATO seems to be taking a more direct approach without the side issues (focusing on regulations & such) & really has a much stronger case.

I'm curious as to how the NRA's case was decided first as the lawyers from CATO filed their's prior to the NRA's, but this can sometimes happen.

In any event, the NRA case isn't a defeat because they lost at the district level: it's a defeat because I believe it was argued porrly & disingenuosly. Should they win any sort of appeal (which is doubtful) it'll be a hollow victory that will do nothing more than say that the 2nd is an individual right but handgun prohibition falls within reasonable regulation of same.

Concerning SCOTUS:

Their refusal to hear Silveira & all the other 2nd amendment cases does not amount to condonement of the decision reached in the lower courts. They hear 1% of cases they are asked to hear every year, so them not hearing any one case is not unusual.
However, since 1939 SCOTUS has been ducking every direct 2nd amendment case, except for those dealing with felons, & it would seem that in aggregate this amounts to SCOTUS not wishing to go on the record one way or the other.
There are many theories as to why SCOTUS gets the willies when a 2nd amendment case is before them. One of them is the theory that Northern Extreme overheard.
But more plausible in my view is that they're simply afraid of the repurcussions of deciding a simple 2nd amendment question. One one hand they don't want to rule honestly as it would take power away from the government. (they're the government too, remember?) On the other I think they realize that a lot of people would not take an atni-2nd amendment ruling lying down. So instead of deciding between civil unrest & taking power away from their employer, they duck the issue.

I don't see a DC gun ban challenge as being any different, whether it's an NRA action or the one from the CATO lawyers. So whatever appeals are made I'd be shocked (& I'm not easily shocked) if SCOTUS granted cert.
 
Oh, you weren't aware that the attorneys in the NRA's DC challenge were saying that registration was okay?
Click to expand...
They aren't saying that. Waiting to attack registration later and saying it is okay are completely different things.

On the D.C. case, Halbrook has explicitely stated that "To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment."

Dislike and attack Halbrook's strategy all you like, but please stick to the facts.
 
dischord,

It was brought up during a conversation with a few lawyer friends of mine. 2 of them have friends in the DC area, and did some research when they heard the USSC decided not to hear the Silva case.

The DC lawyers thought the Silva case was a USSC bound on good legal grounds. They were floored when they heard it had been turned down. In their attempt to find out why they refused to hear the case without citing a (valid) reason, they were told by someone (Federal) they knew that the Justices didn't see anything good coming from a decision at the USSC level. Partly because some of the justices have said they won't uphold an individual rights position because it would cause severe damage to the current state of law in many states, and at least one Justice admits that they are being convinced (pressured) to keep 2nd Amendment issues out of the USSC for other reasons. I don't know who they are refuring the pressure was coming from.

I admit I am in no way connected enough to anybody in the USSC to validate this, but the men who told me are beyond a doubt some of the most professional and honest men I know (and they're lawyers if you can believe that). I have no reason to doubt them, but can not verify it either.
 
Wait...other than VPC and the media running around yelling "NRA", do we know for sure this IS the Halbrook/NRA case versus the "Cato case"?

Because the latter was far simpler and indeed, should have gotten to this point much faster.

What was the judge's name on the Cato case and NRA/Halbrook case?

(Note: "Cato case" is a misnomer - the lawyers on it do a lot of work with Cato, but the Cato Institute isn't directly involved.)
 
NorthernExtreme,

Fair enough :)


------------

Jim March,
What was the judge's name on the Cato case and NRA/Halbrook case?
Click to expand...
Judge Reggie Walton (this case) = NRA/Halbrook case.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan = Cato case.
 
The 2nd doesn't apply in DC because DC isn't a state------

The 2nd is in the Bill of INDIVIDUAL Rights but isn't an individual right --

......proof positive that some people remove their brains when talking about guns.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bartholomew Roberts then asked:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess the other Amendments don't apply to DC as well then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're pretty much right. We have no voting rights or representation in
Congress. That whole "no taxation without representation" cry only
worked for the 50 states.

As a side note - it turns out this Judge Walton is a Bush II appointee who
also worked under Bush I. Nice huh?
 
It is what I keep saying -- the issue has already been decided. The powers that be have abandoned constitutional governance and will simply do whatever the hell they want to do, and the great mass of the sheeple simply snooze on, sedated by beer, football, and reality shows.

Constitutional law in the U.S. is now a myth that sedates the masses minds.
 
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,'' Walton wrote.
Click to expand...
Militias work so very well when they can't have guns. Oh wait, I'm sure he'll tell us that the National Guard fills that role. :rolleyes:
He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.
Click to expand...
Okay... and how does this work in a disarmed citizenry again? "Alright, you're oppressive now gov't! We need to defend ourselves, so change the laws so we can have guns again!"
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.
Click to expand...
That's just the scariest one of all. The BoR doesn't apply in DC... *takes one more step to the west*
As a side note - it turns out this Judge Walton is a Bush II appointee who also worked under Bush I.
Click to expand...
Can't vote Democrat, not gonna vote for the Republican... hey Libertarians, who ya running this year? :)
 
Yeah the problem here is that the Supremes can't make a ruling without setting up a dangerous precedent. If they overturn old ruling they end up with 2nd A absolutism. (While many here would disagree with me, 2nd A absolutism isn't particularly appealing either.) If they rule for the old system, they simply strengthen it. They need a case that they can rule for an individual right, but still leave wiggle room for state regulation. Sticky wicket that one.
 
He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.
Click to expand...
And on the day that the revolution started, the cry went out far and wide "Man your pitchforks, boys, we march today against oppression!"

“Cannon to the left of themâ€
“Cannon to the right of themâ€
“Cannon in front of themâ€

Onward they charged, their pitchforks held high.

Haven't heard much from them since, though ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
DC wronged by Bush judge
Replies
4
Views
791
foghornl
F
W
  • Locked
Saf Alert
Replies
1
Views
483
Standing Wolf
S
U
  • Locked
Judge Uphold's DC's post-Supreme Court Gun Laws
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
joeyl
J
U
  • Locked
Maryland Federal Judge upholds Assault Weapon and Magazine Ban
Replies
17
Views
2K
breakingcontact
B
2
  • Locked
Federal Court Upholds Calif. Gun Show Ban
Replies
2
Views
769
Zak Smith
Zak Smith
Back
Top