Lets call some the anti's out on their false and misleading stories regarding the DC decision. At worst we'll let them know that we're scrutinizing their actions, at best we might give some of them second thought.
I'd like to submit this article:
I encourage you to send your replies to [email protected]
Here's mine:
I'd like to submit this article:
2-1 Conservative Majority in D.C. Court of Appeals Overturns Judicial Precedent and Claims Second Amendment Grants Individual Right
An appellate District of Columbia Circuit Court has made an unprecedented and dangerous decision involving the Second Amendment in the case of a Washington, DC handgun ban. The majority opinion of the three person court concluded that the Capital’s handgun ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and that the Amendment supposedly grants an “individual right” to own firearms.
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.”
However, the dissenting opinion is based on actual historical Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment does not actually grant an individual right to own firearms, but rather a collective right that is definitely subject to reasonable legislation like the DC handgun ban. Thus, unlike the majority opinion, it is based on history and fact, not a partisan, revisionist outlook.
Judge Henderson’s dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority’s assertion to the contrary 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.
It’s important to keep in mind, also, that this ruling is coming from a conservative federal appellate court panel within the full D.C. Court. The handgun ban case will still likely go through the “en banc” sitting of the D.C. Court, which means all of the judges there will rule on it, and if they oppose today’s decision, then the ban will still stand. And after that, the Supreme Court of the United States may hear the case on appeal if the District of Columbia chooses to appeal the case up the line.
For all the talk about individual and collective rights in the Second Amendment, in their fervor to own any firearms they want, the gun guys often ignore the very first clause: that all of this gun ownership, whether individual or otherwise, still needs to be “well-regulated.” In the United States in 2007, it is not. Violent crime is rising, and Americans are dying. It’s likely that a ruling like this, by a “conservative judicial icon” (Judge Laurence Silberman for the majority, a right wing jurist who was actively involved in the efforts to impeach Bill Clinton) will be used by the NRA and others as fuel for spreading even more firearms around the country — and thus causing more death and injury.
This was clearly a political ruling, in that both case precedent and logic dictate that a ban of a particular type of firearm does not even call into question one’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. That’s because one can still own many other types of firearms, including rifles and shotguns. In short, Washington D.C’s ban on handguns saves lives, but it doesn’t preclude anyone’s right to own firearms for self-defense or any other purposes. It just restricts the ownership of one particular type of firearm that is particularly costly in terms of lives and injuries: the handgun.
Handguns are a type of firearm that did not exist before or after the Constitution, until they became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?
As Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the D.C.-based Violence Policy Center warns:
Since its enactment, overturning the DC handgun ban has been the Holy Grail for the National Rifle Association and its supporters. Pending appeal, it looks like they may have finally achieved their goal. And if the case, which concludes that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms,” is heard on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, it has the potential to lay the groundwork for literally every local, state, and federal gun law in America to be challenged: from the federal ban on gun possession by felons to the ban on the manufacture of new, fully automatic machine guns.
In a twist more disturbing than ironic, the court’s decision was issued the same day that a new study, Chief Concerns–Violent Crime in America: 24 Months of Alarming Trends, was issued by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The study warned of increasing violent crime and the facilitating role of firearms: According to the New York Times:
Local police departments blame several factors: the spread of methamphetamine use in some Midwestern and Western cities, gangs, high poverty and a record number of people being released from prison. But the biggest theme, they say, is easy access to guns and a willingness, even an eagerness, to settle disputes with them, particularly among young people.
The NRA’s “victory” is a tragic loss for life, safety and security in America.
The overturning of the D.C. handgun ban — the result of an activist, right wing appellate court majority of two — maybe the most historically noted lethal legacy of an increasingly right wing federal court.
I encourage you to send your replies to [email protected]
Here's mine:
I know its not popular to read something before talking about how terrible
it is, but I do encourage you to actually read the DC courts' decision.
You question how handguns can be protected by the 2nd amendment when they
didn't exist at the time. I would like to first point out that while
something like the modern revolver didn't exist at the time, handguns had
been around for quite some time by then and the flintlock pistol was
certainly not unheard of. New York state library has one of George
Washington's pistols, a gift from General Lafayette that he used during
the revolutionary war, on display.
Anyway I would point you to page 53 of the 75 page ruling. The opinion is
kind enough to point out that the first amendment covers modern
communication devices, the 4th amendment protects modern
telecommunications from search, and the 2nd amendment protect the modern
pistol.
Further you state that DC's ban doesn't impact self-defense. You seem to
be either intentionally misleading or ignorant of the DC gun laws.
Currently DC requires that people store their long guns either with a
trigger lock or disassembled. I don't believe anyone can honestly say
that an inoperable gun is effective self defense.
In the future I hope that you'll actually consider going to the trouble
of reading the documents you're condemning.
Sincerely,
Soybomb