Bring your guns to DC

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

Mar 09 1:52 PM US/Eastern


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."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

Majority opinion

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.

[Zkribbler]

Today handguns...tomorrow, duh Uzi 9 millimeter.

[BlackCat]

Well, if a society descides that they don't care about how many of their citicens that get killed each year because people has free acces to weapons, that is their choice. Just don't start whine when body count rises.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Today handguns...tomorrow, duh Uzi 9 millimeter.

Oh, and what about when you are attacked by a bunch of criminals in a hummer - nah, a 105 mm haubizer is a real deterrent.

[MRT144]

real gangsters use IEDs

[Sava]

I have a right to Tomahawk cruise missiles.

[MRT144]

Where could you purchase a firearm like that?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, if a society descides that they don't care about how many of their citicens that get killed each year because people has free acces to weapons, that is their choice. Just don't start whine when body count rises.

this isnt about we as a society have decided, but about whats constitutional. Though from what I can gather this is a pretty off the wall constitutional view, going against the explicit wording of the amendment.

I fail to see how the fact that an invididual right makes the collective right easier, is an argument. Surely individual ownership, limited to those subject to serve in the militia, makes the collective right easier. However an individual right, extended to those who do not serve, is not required for that.

As for a pre-existing individual right, that would be in English Common Law. Which every state legislature (and by extension the DC City Council) has the right to overide by statute. Or does the court intend to overrule the Uniform Commercial Code in favor of Caveat Emptor?

This is just judicial activism, is all it is. Legislating from the bench.

[DanS]

I don't think the law ever stopped thugs in DC from having guns.

The only thing this will do is allow people like myself to serve on juries in order to throw scumbags in jail. As things stood, I would have to tell the judge during voir dire that I could not in good conscience vote guilty on the gun possession charges, because I believed the DC law to be unconstitutional on its face. I was an automatic strike with cause from the jury pool.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MRT144
Where could you purchase a firearm like that?

Hughes Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Ariz

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


this isnt about we as a society have decided, but about whats constitutional. Though from what I can gather this is a pretty off the wall constitutional view, going against the explicit wording of the amendment.

No offense, but isn't this BS ? Isn't your society defined by the constitution ? and isn't the constitution descided by the society ?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think the law ever stopped thugs in DC from having guns.

The only thing this will do is allow people like myself to serve on juries in order to throw scumbags in jail. As things stood, I would have to tell the judge during voir dire that I could not in good conscience vote guilty on the gun possession charges, because I believed the DC law to be unconstitutional on its face. I was an automatic strike with cause from the jury pool.

Nope.
Judges decide questions of law.
Juries decide questions of fact.
As a jury, you have to agree to follow the law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but isn't this BS ? Isn't your society defined by the constitution ? and isn't the constitution descided by the society ?

the constitution was ratified in 1789. The second amendment was passed, in I think 1790 or so.

It has never been used in the past to override a state gun law, AFAIK.

Now we CAN amend the constitution, but thats a complex process, requiring approval of 2/3 of congress, and 3/4 of the states, IIRC.


I doubt this will survive appeal to SCOTUS, however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think the law ever stopped thugs in DC from having guns.

Thats for the District Council to decide. Federalism, popular soverieignty, all that you know? The things conservatives used to like, when it was liberal judges allegedly legislating from the bench.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It has never been used in the past to override a state gun law, AFAIK.

But remember, DC isn't a state. It's a district under the control of Congress.