 | | 
03-09-2007, 03:00 PM
|
#1 | | Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California
Posts: 14,553
| Appeals Court victory for handgun ownership
THINK THIS MIGHT POSSIBLY WIND UP AT THE SUPREME COURT?
Appeals court rejects D-C gun ban
March 09, 2007 14:00 EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A long-standing ban on handguns in Washington, D-C, is being overturned by a federal appeals court.
The court is rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to militias.
A lower-court judge had told six D-C residents three years ago that they don't have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.
In today's two-to-one decision, the judge held that the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to militia service, or to people with "intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The Supreme Court has never settled the issue of individual gun ownership -- a right that is endorsed by the Bush administration. If the high court takes this case, it will be the first one dealing with the scope of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years.
| 
|  | |
03-09-2007, 03:23 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: North East Texas
Posts: 593
|
Now maybe if Ruth Ginsberg would croak, ehr...retire, it would be an ideal time to run such a case through the Supreme court. What a job!
__________________
"I'm your huckleberry. Thats just my game!" | |
| | |
03-09-2007, 04:20 PM
|
#3 | | Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Gladstone, Missouri
Posts: 14,232
|
Sounds like good news if I've intrepreted the post correctly.
__________________
"If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right". | 
| | |
03-09-2007, 08:32 PM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 132
|
DC has already stated they will appeal to the SCOTUS according to Foxnews. I think this time they wont be able to dodge it. THey're going to have to rule whether the second is a individual or collective right. Methinks they are going to have to rule it individual or they just invalidated the whole bill or rights. I dont think even the liberals on teh SCOTUS are THAT stupid.
SW
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 08:49 PM
|
#5 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
|
Just because they appeal, that doesn't mean that the SCOTUS will hear the case. They choose what they want to decide on.
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 08:51 PM
|
#6 | | Chief Troll B' Gone
Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 3,735
|
Sounds like its getting chipped away
__________________
NRA Life Member
10mm Auto-The ultimate trail gun
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 08:54 PM
|
#7 | | PUKHA DAWG
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia, just outside of Washington D.C.
Posts: 3,745
|
The Mayor had a "nice" sound bite on the news that since they (the city) can appeal, the law is still in effect and will be enforced. But as one local pundit stated, if you're in trouble and need help, call for a pizza and call the Police and see who gets to your home first.
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 09:28 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa
Posts: 8,621
|
Good grief,DC isn't even a state,and is run by a bunch of criminals,what else can we expect?
I don't understand how anyone can live there,unless they are a criminal or have some other issues.  | |
| | |
03-09-2007, 09:36 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave  Good grief,DC isn't even a state,and is run by a bunch of criminals,what else can we expect?
I don't understand how anyone can live there,unless they are a criminal or have some other issues. | Heck, I have issues and I still won't live there.
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 11:09 PM
|
#10 | | PUKHA DAWG
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia, just outside of Washington D.C.
Posts: 3,745
|
I live pretty darn close and I DO have issues.
| |
| | |
03-09-2007, 11:35 PM
|
#11 | | Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California
Posts: 14,553
| I don't see how they can dodge this case
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordruid Just because they appeal, that doesn't mean that the SCOTUS will hear the case. They choose what they want to decide on. | If they don't rule on it, there will be a wave of similar cases across the country, and the lower courts will pretty much be bound by this precedent because the Supremes let it stand (I think; I'm no lawyer). So no decision will be a decision anyway.
Now; how do we get Bush to pack the court with pro-2nd Amendment types, without also cramming it full of judges who want to get rid of the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights and are pro-big business to boot?
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 12:56 AM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Selma, NC
Posts: 2,220
| | |
| | |
03-10-2007, 01:18 AM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: abilene,tx
Posts: 7,305
|
Welp, it's step in the right direction. If it doesn't work, maybe the six people mentioned should band together and actually form a militia.
__________________
cosmoline is an aphrodisiac!
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 01:44 AM
|
#14 | | Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Alaska Wilderness. Unit 13
Posts: 12,445
|
The Fat Lady ain't started singin' YET .....
__________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM! | |
| | |
03-10-2007, 01:50 AM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,356
|
Good news, although it's kinda scary thinking about this going to the big court....
__________________
My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office.
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 07:14 AM
|
#16 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,723
|
Thanks Troy2000 for posting what I dont know how to post.I was hoping someone would.I believe we should stay alert to what is happening but this is one that we cant lobby over as it is in the hands of the courts which arent supposed to be influenced from outside.Because your post is the one I would like to see up here I am going to answer something you posted on mine here to keep this post up.You seemed to hesitate about this going to the supreme court.I dont feel that way.I want a ruling.I believe it will be just and I am just sick and tired of people throwing the liberal version of the second ammendment out and no real way to answer back.I am just tired of trying to defend gun rights without a ruling. samuel.
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 08:42 AM
|
#17 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America
Posts: 6,342
|
Maybe we will be lucky and win this one! What a hoot that would be, yes? 
__________________
"They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 11:52 AM
|
#18 | | Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California
Posts: 14,553
| I think it has to go to the Supreme Court, samuel
Quote:
Originally Posted by samuel Thanks Troy2000 for posting what I dont know how to post.I was hoping someone would.I believe we should stay alert to what is happening but this is one that we cant lobby over as it is in the hands of the courts which arent supposed to be influenced from outside.Because your post is the one I would like to see up here I am going to answer something you posted on mine here to keep this post up.You seemed to hesitate about this going to the supreme court.I dont feel that way.I want a ruling.I believe it will be just and I am just sick and tired of people throwing the liberal version of the second ammendment out and no real way to answer back.I am just tired of trying to defend gun rights without a ruling. samuel. | I'm just pointing out that the last ruling by the court leaned toward the "militia's rights are not individual rights" interpretation. At least, that's the interpretation that could be given it.
This ruling flat says the opposite: it interprets "the militia" as the armed general populace from which forces shall be drawn and organized, rather than those organized forces themselves.
It also points out that it's absurd on the face of it to claim the 2nd Amendment only applies to the states and their official forces. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to reassure oponents of the proposed Constitution, by listing personal rights the federal government couldn't take away from us.
It's probably the most common-sense judicial ruling I've read in a long time, and the important parts are easy to understand. I urge everyone here to got to the link provided by Heilung and read it for themselves: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/dccourt04_7041a.pdf | |
| | |
03-10-2007, 02:02 PM
|
#19 | | PUKHA DAWG
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia, just outside of Washington D.C.
Posts: 3,745
|
FYI, the vote on the Appeals board was 2 to 1, the dissenting judge stated that because The District isn't a state the Constitution doesn't aply to the city?!?!?!
| |
| | |
03-10-2007, 08:53 PM
|
#20 | | Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Alaska Wilderness. Unit 13
Posts: 12,445
|
That would mean that All Constitution laws do not apply to D.C. And that our Government is on "Foreign Soil"....What a Crock.!
__________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM! | |
| | |
