Federal Circuit Court Strikes Down DC. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Arms

Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!

AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

---

Disappointingly, there are still idiots around:

Quote:

---

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

---

So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech? :dizzy2:

From an appellate law site:
http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

Quote:

---

BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.

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."

---

This makes me happy. Not only do we have a new federal court ruling the 2nd is an individual right (like all the other rights), but they declared trigger lock laws and the like unconstitutional!

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So, the bill of rights doesn't apply there? No freedom of speech?

---

D.C. is a bit of an oddity, they do not enjoy the same model of representation that the rest of the country does, for example.

However its good to hear that the only dissent was on that basis.

[QUOTE=CRAZEDRABBIT]"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."[QUOTE]

If you follow this to its logical conclusion, it could be argued that various state laws requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in a case while being transported in a vehicle are also unconstitutional. If interpreted broadly, this case could even prohibit states from outlawing the carrying of firearms on one's person in public.

Well, no doubt they will appeal. Now you need to worry that the Supremes can actually read what the Constitution says.

Yes, it's going to appeal. DC won't just give up its tyranny easily. The SCOTUS decision could be very big.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!

---

Agreed. The DC law was a blight on our freedoms. Let's hope it stand up to appeal.

Wow, you come across like a bunch of real rednecks.

You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?

I can understand an aversion to an outright ban, but really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You don't think firearms should be kept locked up and unloaded?

---

Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.

You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You make it a law so that some idiot doesn't leave his gun out where his two year old can blow his own head off.

---

Cruise missile, Philipvs. After all cruse missiles are 'arms', too. So that some idiot doesn't leave his cruise missile out where his two year old can blow up the entire town.
Cruise missiles should be locked away safely in your bedroom closet.
:yes:

Okay, I'm definately liking the new username.

Adrian: What about ICBMs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Adrian: What about ICBMs?

---

Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.

After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’

Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

reminds me of a sketch in family guy where they are writing the constitution:

"Hey guys, you think this passage is clear enough?"

"How could it be misunderstood, every citizen has the right to hang a couple of bear arms on the walls(points at two bear arms on the wall)"

"yeah ok, but before we send this thing to the printer, lets remove this abortion thing..."

Seriously though, being european, I really can't see why on earth you wouldn't want to have big restrictions on weapons...

Ditto, owning them is fine intrinsically but you want to restrict ownership and make sure people are culpable for stupidity with deadly weapons. Of course you can take this too far.

Labour is planning on banning Samuri swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Exactly. And I'm thinking Stealth bombers as well.

After all I think I Homer Simpson said it best when he told Lisa: ‘If I didn't have my gun, the King of England could just waltz right in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that? Do you?’

Present-day interpretations of the right to bear arms are based on a totally antiquated notion, adequate in the days of Madison when there would be a real need to get together a citizen’s militia to defend the fledgling democracy against external and internal encroachments.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and the Patriot Act more and more Americans fear for the restriction of their constitutional rights and liberties by the government. But the idea that these rights and liberties can somehow be protected in a nineteenth century shout-out with shotguns and revolvers is very naive. Defeating the American government these days would require a serious people’s army possessing jet fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and, yes, nukular weapons.

---

Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.

Heh, banning swords is a bit far... They're generally antiques and such...

But I don't see a single reason as to why anyone should be allowed to possess a weapon for any other use than hunting.

Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Actually, within recent times, one well placed round has been known to have sparked drastic changes. There are plenty of gun laws on the books, punish the criminal who abuses them, not the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not.

---

Which one? The one in Serbia sparking off WWI? The one killing kennedy? The one killing Lennon?

A gun is made for killing other people. Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people. And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife. There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.

Coincidentally:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...=2007703050350

Quote:

---

As customers watched in horror Sunday afternoon, a man stabbed a woman and attempted to set her on fire in the parking lot of a Jackson store, witnesses said.

The attack was stopped by a passer-by, who held the man at gunpoint until police arrived, witnesses said.

The suspect, Henry Watson, 42, was arrested and is expected to face aggravated assault charges, Jackson Police Department Cmdr. Lee Vance said. Watson's wife, Gracie Watson, 42, was transported to the University of Mississippi Medical center, where she was listed in good condition.

"It wasn't five minutes from when she had left my line when I heard a scream outside," said Theresa Stuckey, a cashier at the Family Dollar at 516 Nakoma Drive in Jackson. "I looked out, and (the attacker) was on top of her stabbing her, and stabbing her and stabbing her.

"She was screaming, 'Help, he's trying to kill me!' She was rolling on the ground, trying to get out of the way, but he kept stabbing her. He stabbed her about 20 times in the neck, back and arms."

As the attack continued, people were yelling at the man to stop and honking their horns, Stuckey said. She said she called 911.

"He was just standing over her hacking away," said Dolly Baker, who had just left the Save-A-Lot store next door when she saw the attack.

Baker said she watched the man pour gasoline on the victim then try to strike a match.

"He was literally trying to kill that lady in broad daylight," she said.

Baker said a passer-by stopped the attack.

"He told the man, 'Stop, or I'm going to shoot. And if you run, I'm going to kill you,' " Baker said.

The man held Watson at bay until police arrived at the scene.

"Right now, all we know is that (Watson) attacked his wife. For what reason, we don't know," Jackson Police Department Sgt. Eric Smith said.

Police said they are looking for the passer-by who stopped the attack and would like to talk to him but don't know who he is or where he went.

The incident occurred about 3:50 p.m.

Smith said he did not know exactly how many times Gracie Watson was stabbed but said it was more than 10 times.

---

I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Defence? If I get robbed, they'll take my stuff. If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

---

I disagree, plenty of people have been killed by robbers without trying to defend themselves. Plus there are always incidents like public shootings.

@ Sasaki: Yup, that can also happen. But more people are killed than saved, that's a fact you can't escape. And that episode could also be avoided without a gun...

@ Lignator: yes, they have, but still, if you have a gun in your hand, the chances of someone dying are drastically increased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A gun is made for killing other people.

---

Yes, most guns are. Some guns are actually made for hunting, skeet shooting, or target shooting. However, those guns are fairly effective for killing people too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Owning a gun gives you the power to kill other people. . . And it is FAR easier to kill someone(both physically, mentally and accidentally) with a gun, than say a knife.

---

Absolutely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There is no other reason to get a gun than to be able to kill.

---

Well, this isn't entirely true. There are certainly other reasons for owning a gun. However, gaining the ability to kill someone who you could not hope to defeat without a gun is definitely one of the best reasons for buying one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Having people own guns, makes people shoot and kill other people.

---

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that this is just a poorly written sentence. After all, I've agreed with pretty much everything else you said.

Well, the thread isn't about guns used for sports or hunting, so I wasn't talking about those, I'm talking about the guns used for defense...

As for my english, probably right, I'm not english and it's in the middle of the night here...

What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What I meant was, if people are allowed to have firearms(not for hunting or sports), then there will be deaths caused by those weapons...If that is more understandable?

---

Yes, that's what I thought you meant, and I hope you understand that I wasn't being sarcastic about giving you the benefit of the doubt.

There is no getting around the fact that some of the people who are murdered with firearms each year wouldn't have been murdered if the killer didn't have access to a firearm. There is also no getting around the fact that a very large number of the people who commit murder with a firearm possess it illegally. I know that "the criminals will have them anyway" is an old, crusty argument, but it's one that really can't be refuted logically and realistically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If they would expect me to have a gun, they wouldn't rob me without having one themselves. Then, if they chose to rob me, I could be killed, my girlfriend could be killed, or I could kill one of them. In my mind, a human life far outweigh the value of my TV set...

---

I don't mean to keep picking on your posts, but I just couldn't let this one go. How can you assume that if a criminal did not expect you to have a gun, he wouldn't bring one along? Believe me, they aren't that chivalrous. I agree with you that no TV is worth a human life, but is your girlfriend? Since you seem to be going with a burglary scenario here, I will inform you that it is very common for burglars who unexpectedly encounter unprotected women during a break in to become rapists spontaneously. If your moral system doesn't allow the killing of a man to prevent a rape, then please consider that the burglar / rapist may not wish to leave a live witness to his crime.

Let's consider this scenario in a world where the government has managed to make ALL guns evaporate. How are you going to defend your girlfriend if this bad guy has a knife or a baseball (Cricket?) bat? What if he's just so much bigger than you that you and your girlfriend are defenseless against him? Suddenly, you might wish you had a gun.

People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Who said that? Making it a law is the issue.

---

I'll say it. :wink:

I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I went to a range and fired a gun for the first time today. It's good fun. :yes:

---

Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

People already have a very strong motive to prevent their children from hurting themselves with unsecured firearms-- they are, after all, their kids. If this isn't enough for gun owners to do the right thing, and one of their kids gets hurt, it's on them. The state's role in this case should be education-- regulation is nothing short of condescending and tyrannical.

---

Quoted for truth.

Now then children , in regards to that keep guns locked away thing .
That American teenager in Michigan who succumbed to the terrible scourge of "spontaneous Jihad syndrome" that we have seen floated around here recently and went and shot someone in a school , the gun he used to commit murder belonged to his mother for her self defence and she had it locked away , but he knew where she kept the key .
It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it .
Now it could be said that if the mother didn't have a gun then the son couldn't have taken it , or if the mother had kept the key he couldn't have found it .
Then again there is legislation that could have prevented this , she describes her child as stubborn , disturbed , disobedient and unruly.
She should have taken the boy to the city elders and they could have stoned him to death .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'll say it. :wink:

---

So you have.

I regularly keep a gun in the house that's both loaded and unlocked. I sometimes even carry it on my person. There are different situations that suit different people- what I do may not be the best for everyone, but that's a poor reason to outlaw it. :yes:[/quote]

Prey tell where, in the countryside it's different, as you may concievable need a handgun for dealing with certain wildlife, such as snakes I suppose, or perhaps shooting your horse. In a city though there is no justification for a handgun. That doesn't alter the fact that having a loaded gun in your home is pure idiocy. If you don't have a hold of it it shouldn't be loaded.

Quote:

---

Good for you, man. I find that's the single best way to "convert" people. I'm not saying this was your case, but many people who are uncomfortable with guns are so because they've never gotten the chance to safely use one. I've changed the minds of several family members/friends by taking them out for some target shooting. :2thumbsup:

---

Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.

Give up with the pointless arguments. It is clear that to most of the Americans here guns represent freedom whereas to most of the Europeans they represent quite the opposite. That isn't going to change through bickering on the rights and wrongs of the subject.

You might legitimately argue about the constitutional side of the issue though, since that is clearly open to doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a bit hard to legislate for that sort of thing isn't it.

---

The Bill of Rights is perfectly clear on the matter, Tribesman, you know that. Americans are entitled to bear all arms that would be suitable in a well-regulated militia. People who restrain themselves to handguns and hunting rifles are clearly behind the times. Where is the National Cruise Missile Association when you need them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Just so you know, I'm a first class shot with an assault rifle.

---

I'll add to that, though I wouldn't call me "first class", I did get the marksman badge for the AG3 rifle in the army.

While it was quite fun, it also assured me that such weapon should only be held by armed forces....

In a demonstration, an instructor shot at a dead pig, the damage done to it was simply absurd...