Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on March 09, 2007, 11:59:13 AM
-
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."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Link to ruling (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf)
-
:)
-
It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when the system reall does work. :aok
-
Somewhere in the world, a beetle is crying.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Somewhere in the world, a beetle is crying.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Somewhere in the world, a beetle is crying.
I wondered what that sound was I heard this morning... :lol
Ok so DC is fixed, whose next?
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I wondered what that sound was I heard this morning... :lol
Ok so DC is fixed, whose next?
New York should be next.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
New York should be next.
Hopefully CA is.....I want to buy that evil looking ROMAK :D
-
I agree. Kalifornia. Especially San Francisco area (where I live).
I can't even buy a BB gun around here :mad:
-
That is a long, long read...
Why do lawyers talk like that, just to confuse everyone?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Somewhere in the world, a beetle is crying.
:rofl :rofl
-
I read through the entire decision and I think it is brilliantly written to the extent that if appealed to the Supreme Court, it would likely not even be heard. Thus, this decision would be the defacto law of the land and will lead to suits being filed anywhere private ownership of handguns (or rifles) is restricted. This decision places New York's Sullivan law on extremely thin ice as NY can deny residents the right to purchase and keep a handgun in their home by denying a permit for virtually any reason.
From the decision, final paragraphs:
Finally, there is the District’s requirement under D.C. Code
§ 7-2507.02 that a registered firearm be kept “unloaded and
disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device, unless
such firearm is kept at [a] place of business, or while being used
for lawful recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.” This provision bars Heller from lawfully using a
handgun for self protection in the home because the statute
allows only for use of a firearm during recreational activities.
As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a
pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.” Heller does not
appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept
unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some
circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the
possession of a “functional” firearm to be employed in case of
a threat to life or limb. The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial
lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is reversed and the case is remanded. Since there are no
material questions of fact in dispute, the district court is ordered
to grant summary judgment to Heller consistent with the prayer
for relief contained in appellants’ complaint.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Lol Rip :aok
-
Edit:
NM, Widewing said it better. :)
-
Item 1: OoooOOOOooRAH!
Item 2: I would not bet on this not going to the SC. If Widewing is correct it is so far reaching in implication that the anti-gun foamers will have to engage.
Item 3: The makeup of the SC is close to balanced on this issue right now. Were challenges to come later, say after Presidentte Hillary appoints 2 justices in the mold of Stevens/Ginsburg this ruling might well be reversed.
Item 4: I'm glad the decision brought the 2nd/individual right issue front and center. Time to put that issue to rest once and for all, revisionist Bill of Rights backers be damped.
-
Ok all you bush haters and kerrie lovers who own guns...
Do any of you think the DC court would have the nuts to come up with such a ruling if a kerrie or edwards or hillary was in power?
This is the kind of thing I voted for bush for.
If the supremes are forced into ruling soon... I want to have people on the court who know how to read the constitution and have the nuts to reverse all these years of abuse of the second amendment.
lazs
-
Excellent news. It has always been amazing that any locality in the United States, especially the nation's capital, would ever pass legislation in effect disarming its law-abiding citizens.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Hopefully CA is.....I want to buy that evil looking ROMAK :D
Word. :D
-
this will be a very interesting two years.
-
The scary part is what this judge stated.
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
I consider that remark to be pure evil.
So Karen,does that mean the entire bill of rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia?
-
I saw that and thought no one can be that stupid. So I assume she was just against the ruling but didn't want to come out and engage on it.
That's a pretty stupid reason to try to hide your dissent behind, however.
Were her opinion upheld at the SC, think of the holy hell that would break loose in DC when the Court told them they weren't entitled to the protections in the Bill of Rights because of where they live. :)
I am SO suprised it was the woman judge that wrote the dissent. But you have to admire that reasoning......... in the same way you admire a train wreck.
-
DC should be given back to the state of Virgina.
-
I very seriously doubt that Virginia either wants it or would take it if offered.
-
Taking this to a "somewhat" logical extreme, that would mean all 3 branches of the govt. contained in the DC area are not in the US and therefore not bound by the constitution. It would also mean that we would not have redress for their actions.
That would be more than a little scary.
Originally posted by Sox62
The scary part is what this judge stated.
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
I consider that remark to be pure evil.
So Karen,does that mean the entire bill of rights should be null and void in the District of Columbia?
-
HOLY $H!T!!!!!! Score one for the LAW ABIDING gun wielding citizens!!!!!! Guess the second ACTUALLY has Meaning!!! woot!
-
Originally posted by Halo
Excellent news. It has always been amazing that any locality in the United States, especially the nation's capital, would ever pass legislation in effect disarming its law-abiding citizens.
My friend, the surest way to control a population is to disarm it. Whats not to get?
-
Originally posted by john9001
DC should be given back to the state of Virgina.
:huh
Last time I checked, DC is NORTH of the Potomac. (http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/washdc.htm)
-
Last time I checked, DC is NORTH of the Potomac.
Yes...yes it is...
But keep this in mind... VA and MD both donated land to form the District originally... but VA asked for theirs back. So John9001... you're kinda right. VA just took it back before it got all fluffied up. ;)
DC was supposed to be diamond shaped...
-
So, theoretical timeline here .........
DC appeals to have the full Appellate court reconsider the ruling (if they decide to review it at all). Give it 6 months before they decide if they will review or not. A year to come to a decision if they do review it.
The arguments are very well thought out and I seriously doubt there is much there that can really BE argued. Not enough to justify the full court overturning the ruling anyway. So I'm assuming the ruling will stand.
Give another 6 months or so for paperwork to be filed and for the SC to decide if they want to review the case or not.
If by some miracle they do decide to hear it, we could conceivably have a SC ruling on this case inside 3 years. Even if the Dems do take the White House in 08, I seriously doubt they could F*** this up before it was done and over if DC continues to appeal.
So really the smartest thing the liberals can do ATM is to drop the case and not appeal it. They cant afford a SC ruling that will find against them, no matter how watered down they might be able to get it. They dont need victory, they just need the status quo. An outright loss would really be damaging to them and they cant afford it.
Its a great time to be alive aint it? :)
-
I'm still waiting on Charon's reply, he always has something cool to say on this subject.:D:cool:
-
MT... I am wondering what you think of this.. I believe that several times in the past you have said... "name one gun control law that was struck down on constitutional grounds".
There were gun control laws struck down before but they always skirted the constitutional aspect.. this is a clear case tho.
This opens the floodgates... I believe star of africa is correct.. the "liberals" (one world socialists) are quaking in their boots. the deck is stacked against em and even a hillary can't help em.. best to lay low... hope the win big in 08 and hope some of the good supreme court justices drop dead.
The second is what it is... it is an individual right and we (the U.S.) has been abusing it's citizens constitutional rights for a the last 7 decades so far as the second.
The whole thing started to unravel when concealed carry laws got in and there weren't mass shootouts over fenderbenders... the socialists and gun-o-phobes really lost a lot of credibility with reasonable Americans, gun owners or not...
The whole "hunting" thing is losing it's focus.. it was easy to ban guns if you could twist the second into a "right to sport hunt" but....
That is not what is happening... the people are starting to see that they need to be responsible for their own safety and... there are lots of non liberals still who have the guts to take that responsibility.
This law focused on handguns and their ability to make a citizen free from the tyranny of crime.
The weenies will have to get the focus back on hunting and national guard but... no one is going to buy that crap anymore... they will have to work to change the second amendment...
interesting times... meanwhile... 80-100 million Americans sit on over 200 million guns and are starting to take an interest in what is happening.
millions of guns were sold last year.. the NRA increased it's membership... Women are the fastest growing segment of the new gun owners.
the lies aren't selling anymore.. the gun free zones are just shooting galleries for the insane and the criminal... our schools and big cities are slums.... dangerous slums where good people are at the mercy of the bad.
lazs
-
I think we need to take up a national collection to help arm the DC innocents! A .45 in every home!!! That would cut down on crime for sure.
Who's in?
-
Originally posted by Dago
I think we need to take up a national collection to help arm the DC innocents! A .45 in every home!!! That would cut down on crime for sure.
Who's in?
Nope I can't get behind that idea. There are too many felons that live there to support arming every household. Some of them "work" in the very halls of government and I definitely wouldn't want to see them armed. They might shoot their eye out......... on the other hand that could be a "good" thing.
-
I'm still waiting on Charon's reply, he always has something cool to say on this subject.
LOL. I've been too busy calling my state reps the past couple of days trying to head off SB16, the latest Illinois AWB coming from Gov. Daley's office in Chicago. If DC stands, then there is hope that I may not have to move out of state anytime soon. Been looking at property in both Kenosha, WI and Chesterton Ind. for a variety of reasons. Cost of living being one for the family (wife wants to have a 2nd kid and take time off work), the 2nd being one for me.
Not to mention state sock puppet figurehead Balgovitch is ready to do all sorts of California style tax and spend stuff, where I will be taxed and not get any of the spend in return.
Charon
-
Wonders never cease!
Next, they'll be legalizing dildoes in Texas! :rofl
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Wonders never cease!
Next, they'll be legalizing dildoes in Texas! :rofl
Whyzat concern ya unless you're afraid you'll be illegal there? :huh
-
Originally posted by Charon
LOL. I've been too busy calling my state reps the past couple of days trying to head off SB16, the latest Illinois AWB coming from Gov. Daley's office in Chicago. If DC stands, then there is hope that I may not have to move out of state anytime soon. Been looking at property in both Kenosha, WI and Chesterton Ind. for a variety of reasons. Cost of living being one for the family (wife wants to have a 2nd kid and take time off work), the 2nd being one for me.
Not to mention state sock puppet figurehead Balgovitch is ready to do all sorts of California style tax and spend stuff, where I will be taxed and not get any of the spend in return.
Charon
Charon, I hear they have a couple of Concealed Carry bills working their way through the Illinois legislature right now.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1304&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=26943&SessionID=51
In the nearly 1 month since its introduction it has reached a point to be debated in the House. I realize Gov. Roddy is a Daly puppet but with enough support they can outvote him. They did it in Kansas. If you want to rally some legislators, get them behind this one.
The other bill is (I believe) one for concealed carry for judges and prosecutors and public defenders? I heard mention of it but lost track of it. Dont know status on that one.
-
I like to hear news like this. It proves there is still some common sense out there, and heroes willing to go the extra mile to defend freedom.
Les
-
I like to hear news like this. It proves there is still some common sense out there, and heroes willing to go the extra mile to defend freedom.
:rofl
-
Why do you think that's funny FastFwd? Don't you have anything else to offer?
Les
-
Or I should say don't you have more to offer?
Les
-
fstfwrd.. are you really as frieghtened of firearms as you seem or are you just parroting some views of a former boyfriend or professor?
lazs
-
Lazs, let's be realistic here. It has nothing to do with firearms. What it has to do with is freedom, whether it's firearms or anything else that's legal. People are jealous of that and it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone in particular. I could say the same thing about paintings for example...hardly something to get upset about, unless it amounts to slander or character assassination. And this happens all the time with the media, just look at the comics on any editorial page of a newspaper.
I know one thing, if I was a criminal I wouldn't want to get shot. Does that not make sense or what? Firearms are serious business and anyone who carries one needs to be very serious minded. There is nothing funny about it.
Les
-
Originally posted by Charon
Not to mention state sock puppet figurehead Balgovitch is ready to do all sorts of California style tax and spend stuff, where I will be taxed and not get any of the spend in return.
You misspelled it: B u t t h o l e v i c h is the correct spelling.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Firearms are serious business and anyone who carries one needs to be very serious minded.
Well said Leslie. I have gotten to read what gun owners have to say most from the O'Club. Just doesn't come up in conversation amongst friends here though Wyoming likes guns.
Most posters who are passionate about the 2nd amendment I find to be very serious about their opinions.
The experience though of reading through a slew of posts does not leave me with the feeling that they are "serious minded" generally.
That could be due to the nature of this forum which has more than it's share of jocularity, scarcasam, etc.
On a side note, at work the other day, I asked a woman for her ID to process her check -- I work in a grocery store -- and she handed me her laminated card that stated it was her license to carry a concealed weapon.
1st time I've ever seen one of those.
Good Post,
hap
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... I am wondering what you think of this.. I believe that several times in the past you have said... "name one gun control law that was struck down on constitutional grounds".
lazs
Honestly lazs, I think it's about time this all came to a final decision. Now that the 2nd has been cited in a federal court case the ambiguous nature of the 2nd can be removed forever. And please don't say it isn't an ambiguously written amendment. If it were as clear as you claim it to be there would never be a "2nd amendment debate".
-
Originally posted by Hap
On a side note, at work the other day, I asked a woman for her ID to process her check -- I work in a grocery store -- and she handed me her laminated card that stated it was her license to carry a concealed weapon.
1st time I've ever seen one of those.
Good Post,
hap
i have always been tempted to show my CC permit for my ID when boarding a airplane, but the TSA would probably shut down the airport.
-
Interesting development. I highly doubt that the liberals of Al Quaida America (Democrats) will stop at this ruling though. You can guarantee they are going to fight the 2nd Ammendment until they gather the power they need to propose an ammendment that abolishes the 2nd Ammendment.
The war for the 2nd Ammendment is far from over. Be vigilant, and be heard.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Interesting development. I highly doubt that the liberals of Al Quaida America (Democrats) will stop at this ruling though. You can guarantee they are going to fight the 2nd Ammendment until they gather the power they need to propose an ammendment that abolishes the 2nd Ammendment.
The war for the 2nd Ammendment is far from over. Be vigilant, and be heard.
The fight over the second ammendment might be just what is needed to put Republican back in power in Congress next election, and secure the Presidency.
-
I don't know that the Republicans will have much of a problem holding onto the White House.
I expect them to do so.
Moreover, if the Republican's win, I expect the margin to be larger than the preceeding two Presidential elections.
As to a 2nd amendment wrangle helping them secure the White House, I doubt it would do so. My guess is it would have the opposite effect.
A year from now, the horror the horror, we'll be just over 8 months from the general election. And, the respective conventions would still be about 5 months away.
Hey, want a prediction?
I'll blurt it out so you can laugh at me, but I say it's going to be Newt versus Al.
I guess Guilini's stand on abortion, guns, and homosexual marriage, especially the 1st and 3rd, are just too big of a pill to swallow come to or before the convention. Mc Cain would be my guess to get the nod, but there's some bad blood there and who knows how high and deep it runs.
I don't suppose Hillary and Obama to be electable. Edwards would seem like a reasonable choice come convention time or before. The guys and gals behind the scenes may well think he has it right and can win. But, I am guessing that Gore's losing by a smidge will win the day.
So, it's going to be Newt and Al because in the decision makers can find more to agree upon with them than the others (don't ask me to prove it I can't.) And this is just all semi-wild speculation on my part.
And the winner will be: President Newt.
Hope the Day Goes Well for All,
hap
-
Hap is right in the the 2nd Ammendment debate will not trip the election to the Republicans. The fact that Hillary is unelectable, and Obama is black, neither will get in. That leaves Edwards, but unfortunately for him, he is just another Dan Quayle, but the Democrats will support him, or be stupid and put up Hillary.
That leaves the Republicans putting up McCain or Giulliani. Personally I like Giulliani more than McCain, but, his stance on gun control is tough for me to swallow. Personally I could care less about queers getting married and I support the right to choose. The smart move would be to put up Giulliani if he agrees to drop gun control and leave Roe vs. Wade alone. That alone would guarantee him the win.
Oh, and Hap, Newt will never get the nod.
-
ross perot
srsly
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And please don't say it isn't an ambiguously written amendment.
It is as unambiguous as saying the earth is for all intents and purposes round rather than flat.
Of course, there used to be lots of folks that argued the earth was flat. They were just wrong, just like those that think the 2nd does not delineate an individual right as every other amendment in the bill of rights does.
The reason there is debate is because there are those that wish it did not delineate an individual right. In other words, because there are those that would subvert the Bill of Rights.
-
Scary thought here ........
Assuming we do get a SC ruling and it upholds the one in DC, it wont toss out every state's Concealed Carry laws, but it will make several of the more restrictive states reconsider their laws or face lawsuits. I think we can agree those points are a given.
Now assume a Democrat gets into office with a Democratic Congress. I smell a push for a new Constitutional amendment to reconsider the 2nd if those things come to pass. If they cant stop the SC from ruling in a way they dont like, they can try to end run around the SC by rewriting the Constitution. Could they do it?
-
I could respect a man with the political courage to propose repealing the 2nd as opposed to a spineless man who tries to chip it away bit by bit until it's meaningless.
-
SOA,
A rewrite of the constitution is the only way it could ever go. If this ruling by the SC stands, then a rewrite is the only way to go as you said.
However, if a rewrite of the constitutin to abolish the 2nd Ammendment is attempted, I think that might be enough of a catalyst to force a massive movement of "change". I suspect that "change" will not be very pleasant for those that propose the rewrite.
I suspect the infamous quote "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand" will actually play out in more than one way.
-
Cue Laser..
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
If they cant stop the SC from ruling in a way they dont like, they can try to end run around the SC by rewriting the Constitution. Could they do it?
No. There's no chance to get the required number of states to ratify something that extreme. They couldn't get the Equal Rights Amendment through the various state houses. I doubt that it would have a prayer passing the Congress and Senate. Remember what happened the last time gun owners turned out to vote? The Dems lost both houses. Many Democrats fear the NRA's power and money in their local elections.
Keeping their jobs is the primary concern of politicians. Everything else competes for second place.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Oh, and Hap, Newt will never get the nod.
If McCain would say some stuff I want to hear about bringing back our manufacturing, I'd be behind him more than I am which still is a considerable degree.
In reality, it's probably gone for good which is just plain awful.
The reason I guessed Newt is from what I've read some powerful Repubs are sore beyond sore at McCain for all the campaign finance reform stuff which I support.
Newt would be a stretch.
I'd be happy with McCain. He's speaks my language on the things I value most.
If he were more like Buchanan on manufacturing, I'd campaign for him.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Widewing
No. There's no chance to get the required number of states to ratify something that extreme.
Widewing is right.
All the Best,
hap
-
I rather think so too, but I would rather hear other people think so too. Every time anyone starts to talk about Constitutional Amendments I start to get worried.
-
There is a far greater chance that the supremes will hear on the meaning of the second than there is that the democrats will commit suicide and try to get rid of the entire amendment.
The supremes have only heard on it once in the 30's and then.. they only heard one side and...not being very well educated in weapons and war.. they concluded that a sawed off shotgun was not a useful weapon for a man to have in a militia. This was wrong of course but.... how would they know? they only heard the slimy agency guys side of it.
That would not happen today.. we have realized that we need advocates and that what seems like a natural right of citizens is not viewed as such by those who control us.
The next battle will have experts of every stripe... Groups like the NRA will show their muscle.
I urge all of you who haven't done so yet to join the NRA.
lazs
-
Not just the NRA. You should also join your state's group as well. The Illinois State Rifle Association is the group behind pushing the concealed carry bills there. The Hawaii Rifle Association is behind the legislation to repeal the high capacity magazine ban here. All over America, state level associations are pushing for change and supporting our 2nd amendment rights. Change starts at home.
We should support the NRA and the work they are doing in Congress to fight the anti-gun lobby and support our rights, but we should never lose sight of the fact that many things are left to the states. We need the same level of influence in state govt. as we do in the federal.
-
Originally posted by moot
Cue Laser..
:D
-
HHAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!! :mad:
:lol