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

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-09-2007, 21:13

Yeehaw! A great score for the constitution!

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

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:

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?

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

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

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-09-2007, 21:29

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.

**gunslinger** · 03-09-2007, 21:36

[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.

**Fisherking** · 03-09-2007, 22:24

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

**Crazed Rabbit** · 03-09-2007, 22:52

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

CR

**Xiahou** · 03-09-2007, 23:56

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2007, 00:11

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.

**Proletariat** · 03-10-2007, 00:18

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2007, 01:32

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.

**Adrian II** · 03-10-2007, 01:47

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2007, 02:00

Okay, I'm definately liking the new username.

Adrian: What about ICBMs?

**Adrian II** · 03-10-2007, 02:06

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.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2007, 02:27

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...

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-10-2007, 02:46

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.

**Hosakawa Tito** · 03-10-2007, 03:05

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.

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2007, 03:05

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...

**HoreTore** · 03-10-2007, 03:10

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.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-10-2007, 03:13

Coincidentally:

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

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.

**Tuuvi** · 03-10-2007, 03:17