Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban

Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban

news.yahoo.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

When discussing the second amendment, the debate against the right to own a gun has always been that it applies only to militias.
This federal court ruling is step in the right direction for those who feel it is their right to bear arms.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This story just came on cable a few minutes ago as breaking news and there's not much on the ruling online yet, but:

"This case will have significant impact beyond the District of Columbia," Gura said.

Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

FOXnews.com


[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

What, this is such a busy news day that no one thinks this ruling is important?
No pro-gun folks cheering that a court has finally hold a gun control law unconstitutional:
www.iht.com...

The court relied on a constitutional interpretation that has been rejected by nine federal appeals courts around the nation. The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun-control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to a collective right of state militias.

In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.



[edit on 9-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Personally I don't own a gun, but if I lived in Washington DC I would. There are more criminals per square mile than on any other place on earth, And thats just the politicians. Go out into the streets and then you really have a problem.

Well, yeah, me, too
But, for years, gun owners have been telling everyone who would listen that the Second Amendment doesn't just say that the right to bear arms is limited to a militia.
Now, you have a Federal Court agreeing, and nary a whimper or a cheer.

Exception To The Rulers

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Now, you have a Federal Court agreeing, and nary a whimper or a cheer.

Maybe they're shocked at the idea of a federal judge interpreting the law as written.

I must admit, I'm having a hard time believing it myself.

But then I've never been able to understand what a "collective right" is supposed to be in the first place.

Is a "collective right" a right everyone has but no one can exercise?

Or is a "collective right" one that is implied so no discussion is even needed.

What this could lead to is a Supreme Court Review...now that could get very interesting.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Now, you have a Federal Court agreeing, and nary a whimper or a cheer.

I'll be getting excited when I see a challenge to the Supreme Court and the ruling of the appellate court upheld. I'll then get even more excited when I see this start happening in states with moderate restrictions. And then, I'll get really excited, because that means that New York will finally get their head out of their arse. But, only after gun laws become less restrictive in every other state, because NY sure won't be the first to act on this.

Facetiousness aside, I think this is a good precedent if the appellate ruling is upheld. As an NRA member I believe in the right to bear arms and I also do not have a problem with background checks for pistol permits. I think that is a fair check and balance. Now of course, some states like NY do go to extremes when it comes to pistol permits; but I am a bit of an optimist that one day that might change.

For once the feds do something that I actually agree with, there just might be hope for this place yet. It would be nice to see this spread to other places with anal gun restrictions, then perhaps we can work towards something truly outstanding like a national concealed carry program so I don't have to map my trips to hopscotch through places that honor my VA permit.

Enjoyment aside I'm a little worried about the prospect of this hitting the Supreme Court; if they uphold the lower court's decision then thats amazing, if they don't then thats the last step they can undertake unless they work to have the law repealed. Heres to crossing my fingers and hoping the citizens of DC finally get a fair shake for once.

watch crime rate fall, then watch gungrabbers dance in circles around the statistics.

sucks to be them, doesn't it?

Good victory for our 2nd admendment rights.

since magic shut down the other thread I figure Id post my favorite quote on this issue here:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson

This was why the founding fathers made this right second only to freedom of speech and expression on their list.

And for those of you who dont know, we have an Assault Weapons Ban coming up in congress. The 1994 ban did nothing except raise prices, so if you want to fight it, then join the NRA, become a member on some forums, contact your congressmen.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]

I am glad to see this but it must be taken seriously now that an appeals court has made a ruling if D.C. wants to take it higher it has to go to the Supreme Court and what then? If they uphold it well and good that's as it should be but if they strike it down and decide with D.C. that it is a collective right we are screwed! I know this is not really all that likely but it is a scary decision point, yes the supreme court has been leaning in favor of individual rights but the second amendment is a case where even advocates of personal rights can't seem to see that we are the people not the government, there is a lot of yeah the army and cops should have guns but Joe lunch pail and Suzy homemaker don't need them. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 27 words that taken separately are not very hard to understand but, when you place them together in the constitution certain people don't seem to know who the people are or what infringed mean and what exactly keep or bear refer to. it seem pretty clear to me the people who wish to control you would want you disarmed, if I were going to do something against the best interests of a group of people I certainly would not want them to have guns.

Next stop: SCOTUS.

I applaud this decision; it is long overdue. The day that the right to bear arms is taken away from us is the day is the day that the US as it was founded, would have died.

I found the dissenting opinion interesting: DC is not a state, therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to it's residents. Huh? So a person stops being a citizen if they move to Washington?

Originally posted by jsobecky

I found the dissenting opinion interesting: DC is not a state, therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to it's residents. Huh? So a person stops being a citizen if they move to Washington?

The stupidity of that statement stupifies. I thought anyone with a law degree had to understand that the Constitution does not grant rights, but rather, guarantees the rights of man granted by God.

By extention, if the Second Amendment doesn't apply in DC, then none of the Constitution applies in DC.

Hmm. Maybe we're on to something here.

it seems possible that they overturned the decision because they didn't want everyone in DC with a gun joining a militia? that in its self is pretty dangerous.

Every citizen owning a gun is going to make little difference to an arbitrary government unless there's an organized resistance. A neighborhood of handguns is no match for UD artillery or a phalanx of riot police.

My guess is it will only contribute to the violence people have against each other in the case of civil break-down. Look at New Orleans. Shooting looters before they brought them water and disarming all the rest.