Holy Shitballs! Great News Gunowners

[distortion9]

OK, this has a ways to go but, it's a start. Hopefully this reaches SCOTUS and forces a ruling in our favor.

Nice to see judges that "get it".


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 (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf).




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.

[distortion9]

This just in....

Crime in D.C. at an all time low.

I also love that this ruling came on the day "300" opened....MOLON LABE !!!!!

[MAV]

awesome

[tourettesguy]

I'm pro-gun, but I will never own one.

It seems so fucking paranoid to me.

[ImAlrightSpider]

Don't have a gun, but would like to get one at some point.

I live in Massachusetts, understand that it can be tough to get a handgun. Maybe this will make it easier.

[J. PETERSON]

Yeah yeah!

[weeniewawa]

Don't have a gun, but would like to get one at some point.

I live in Massachusetts, understand that it can be tough to get a handgun. Maybe this will make it easier.
isn't it true you can own slaves easier in Mass than a gun? unless you are a Kennedy:action-sm

[MrBogey]

Great news. Now all they need to do is have some FFL dealers move into town so DC residents can buy them.

[THE FEZ MAN]

it will end up in a quagmire of appeals, and some other court will over rule it.

[MAV]

this may be the same thing that distortion9 posted but may have a little more info.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

Friday, March 09, 2007

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held 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 Anti-federalist 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."

Read the majority opinion here

In its ruling, the Court also rejected the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, which has had a gun ban on the books for decades, because it is not a State. The majority opinion concludes that the D.C. prohibition on gun ownership in the home, "amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

The ruling was not unanimous, and the dissenting judge makes it clear in her dissent that opponents of the Second Amendment are still pervasive throughout our federal court system.

Today's ruling is the second time a federal circuit court has upheld the individual nature of the Second Amendment in recent years. In 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found in the case of U.S. v. Emerson that, "All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans....We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms..."

While the court decision was certainly great news, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." This legislation, by Representatives Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.), seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia.

In lauding the D.C. court decision, and announcing her plans to introduce the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1399, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) noted, "I agree with the court that the Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms and defend themselves. That is why next week I will reintroduce my legislation to repeal the existing ban. Protection of constitutional rights does not cease when you cross into the borders of the District of Columbia. Not only is Washington, D.C.’s gun ban unconstitutional, but it also has been a public policy failure as seen in the rise in crime since its enactment. The time has finally come to change course."

The need for this corrective legislation is obvious. Since 1977, the District has banned the possession of all handguns not acquired and registered before that year. D.C. law also prohibits keeping an assembled rifle or shotgun in the home, effectively outlawing the use of firearms for lawful self-defense. And despite these Draconian gun control laws, Washington, D.C., consistently has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

This legislation had a record high number of cosponsors in the 109th Congress (235 cosponsors for the House version, and 41 cosponsors for the Senate version). The House has voted on this issue four different times over the past eight years but the Senate has yet to consider it.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and ask him or her to cosponsor and support the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

[PEST BY TRADE]

I think it's a good thing seeing I currently carry my gun with me
when I go down to D.C to see the caps games anyway so it being legal
soon is a plus

[TrybalRage]

Note: This overruling does not cover carry of a handgun in DC, simply the possession of one.

Still, it is a positive note. Having a court recognize that the 2nd is an individual right, just like all the others in the BOR, is fantastic news.

I'm pro-gun, but I will never own one.

It seems so fucking paranoid to me.


What do I have to be paranoid about? I have a gun!:icon_mrgr

Seriously though, paranoid? Watch the news much?:nuts:

Why is it acceptable for a person to get a security system, acceptable for someone to carry mace, but crazy to be prepared if the system or mace fail to protect them?

[Budyzir]

Here in NYC, I just hope it turns out right.

[distortion9]

Note: This overruling does not cover carry of a handgun in DC, simply the possession of one.

Still, it is a positive note. Having a court recognize that the 2nd is an individual right, just like all the others in the BOR, is fantastic news.

Yeppers....I'd like for this to get to the SCOTUS and settle this shit once and for all. Then all we have to do is make them understand the word "Infringed".....cocksuckers.




What do I have to be paranoid about? I have a gun!:icon_mrgr

Seriously though, paranoid? Watch the news much?:nuts:

Why is it acceptable for a person to get a security system, acceptable for someone to carry mace, but crazy to be prepared if the system or mace fail to protect them?

Hello, Exactly! I can't recall my house ever catching fire or the last time I had a flat tire but, I do keep a fire extinguisher and spare tire handy.

[Polack]

I don't care who the fuck tells me I can't carry my 357. If I have to walk a property line out in the middle if the woods and I pass a mother black bear after she just had a cub I will be chased. And since this has happened in the past and the only thing to stop the bear was my gun, I will always carry it on me. I guess this is how you guys feel when you go above a hundredth street in the big city.

[bethm1b]

I don't care who the fuck tells me I can't carry my 357. If I have to walk a property line out in the middle if the woods and I pass a ((mother black }}after she just had a {{Couple 40s}} I will be chased. And since this has happened in the past and the only thing to stop the bear was my gun, I will always carry it on me. I guess this is how you guys feel when you go above a hundredth street in the big city.


Now, it's like going across 100th street.

[MAV]

Now, it's like going across 100th street.
is it?

[tourettesguy]

What do I have to be paranoid about? I have a gun!:icon_mrgr

Seriously though, paranoid? Watch the news much?:nuts:

Why is it acceptable for a person to get a security system, acceptable for someone to carry mace, but crazy to be prepared if the system or mace fail to protect them?

Oh you mean the "scary" news teases? The ones which are designed to get you to buy a gun and consume?

No, I don't fall for such dumb shit.