1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

What's this? I don't beleive it!

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Seacowboys, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    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.
    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.
    Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
    This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit. Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."
  2. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Moderator Moderator Founding Member

    WOW, just WOW!!!

  3. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Moderator Moderator Founding Member

    WOW, I just got done reading that 75 page ruling (and needed a dictionary for some of the words used LOL )

    From the DC laws:
    “Every able-bodied male citizen resident within the
    District of Columbia, of the age of 18 years and under the age of
    45 years, excepting . . . idiots, lunatics, common drunkards,
    vagabonds, paupers, and persons convicted of any infamous
    shall be enrolled in the militia.” D.C. Code § 49-401.

    Well at least they are excluding the politicians from the militia

    That was one good read. I may print it out for further study.
  4. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

  5. Copperhead

    Copperhead Monkey+++

    Beat me to it!

    [​IMG] D.C. Gun Law Struck Down.
    <HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1>CCRKBA Hails D.C. Gun Law Nullification on Second Amendment Grounds

    BELLEVUE, Wash., March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Citizens
    Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today hailed a ruling by the
    United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that, for the
    first time in American history, struck down a gun law on Second Amendment
    The case was Parker v. District of Columbia, challenging the
    31-year-old District of Columbia ban on handgun registrations to allow
    citizens to keep functional handguns in their District residences for
    personal protection.
    "Anti-gunners are screaming hysterically about 'judicial activism at
    its worst' that ignored decades of 'Supreme Court precedent'," noted CCRKBA
    Executive Director Joe Waldron. "In fact, this ruling strikes a mortal blow
    to decades of judicial activism based on erroneous interpretation and
    deliberate misrepresentation of a 1939 Supreme Court decision, and returns
    the Second Amendment to its historically accurate place in the Bill of
    "It is both sad and amusing at the same time that the dominant press
    has largely refrained from mentioning that the ruling says the Second
    Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is not
    limited to militia service," Waldron noted.
    In writing the majority opinion, Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman
    states, "The Amendment does not protect 'the right of militiamen to keep
    and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people'."
    "Judge Silberman properly concludes what gun rights scholars have been
    saying for years," Waldron observed. "The Second Amendment is not some
    mythical 'collective right,' but an individual civil right equal to rights
    guaranteed to individual citizens under the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth
    "Today's ruling corrects long-standing misrepresentations of the 1939
    ruling in U.S. v Miller, and more than three decades of injustice suffered
    by District of Columbia residents," Waldron said. "Judge Silberman did his
    research and reached the only logical conclusion one could have about the
    meaning of the Second Amendment."
    The ruling may be viewed at
    (194 KiB) Note that PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar
    With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens
    Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.ccrkba.org) is
    one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit
    organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms
    freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating
    grass- roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities
    throughout the United States.
    Contact: Joe Waldron (425) 454-4911
  6. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    nothing in politics happens by accident
  7. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    FDR said that and he ranks right up there with Clinton.

    This will either end in great news with the Supreme Court or the worst news ever, adding a double ruling against the 2nd amendment.

    Hope for the best, prepare for the worst........every anti-gun leftist is gonna start donating.........do we need to figure out where to send our money?
  8. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    This once great country is going through its death throes.

    Remember this when we are at the bottom of the nightmare.
    Those that you used to sneer at as Conspiracy Theorists were really the barking dogs that were trying to alert you to the intruder prowling up your drive... You were too busy giggling to notice the slight of hand.

    Precious Second Ammendment rights my ass. Most of us gun owners are too lazy and apathetic to do anything but type a few lines on a keyboard to voice approval or disapproval.

    I'm going to Disney Land
  9. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    [booze]Send more beer to Melbo. He isn't typing slurry yet......now get out of bed!
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Needs an upper, it seems. [melbo]
  11. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    It's a travesty that it even has to go this far, but a win is a win. I would much rather have a win, than another precedence setting loss.

    Death throes, no, but we have lost liberties that would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. I agree that far too many of us do nothing about it. I write my congressmen in both the house and senate, and yes, I make a campaign contribution from time to time, and belong to pro-gun associations. However more should always be done.
  12. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    What good do you think writing congressmen really does? It's like telling the Fox that is guarding the Hen House that you expect him to stop eating your chickens.
  13. melbo

    melbo Hunter Gatherer Administrator Founding Member

    I was Surfing Under the Influence last night. But, twas after that outburst of mine. I try to stay away from here if I get a bit ripped[troll]
  14. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    [SIZE=+1]Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found[/SIZE]
    <SMALL>Human Events ^ | 15 March 2007 | Mac Johnson</SMALL>

    <SMALL>Posted on 03/15/2007 8:44:56 AM PDT by RKV</SMALL>

    Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court's inexplicable ruling was based on a "radical" interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
    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.
    According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given "a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment." Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:
    The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.
    "[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder," the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens.
    The district's law-and-order mayor, Adrian Fenty, apparently outraged by the disappointing decision, stated afterwards, "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision. Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." It's hard to argue with the mayor when one looks at the cold hard facts: today's murder rate is just 26% higher than it was when the gun ban was put in place in 1978, down from a peak of just 128% higher in 1991 before a nationwide decline in crime driven by demographics took hold. With results like that, I'm not sure D.C. can afford to have its gun violence "decreased" any further.
    But its not just D.C. that is at risk from this radical discovery of the so-called "Bill of Rights" (if that’s even its real name), the mayor is also worried that the anarchy of Constitutional limits on government power could spread, commenting: "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the country. It's the first time that a federal court has said that the 2nd Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."
    Of course, it's only the first time a federal source has said that the Constitution restricts gun control if you don't count the 2nd Amendment itself -- which is intended expressly to restrict or prohibit gun control. But then this may be the first time a Federal court has read that far into the Constitution -- it's so easy to get hung up trying to find "separation of church and state" in the 1st Amendment, after all.
    A number of sources on the left held up for praise in the decision the one dissenting judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. This is a wonderful precedent, not only for the District, but also for America's other territories such a Puerto Rico.
    According to this same logic, Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 (among others) do not apply in the District either, which means the District is free to a) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, b) deny the vote to blacks, c) deny the vote to women, d) institute a poll tax, and e) deny the vote based on age. Clearly, Henderson deserves her new status as a liberal hero.
    Henderson's second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe this, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that felt a need to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army -- which is possible, I suppose, if Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democrat party towards the military.
    The mystery of whether the amendment guarantees the people or the military the right to have weapons perplexed a number of commentators taken aback by the decision. Consider this verbal tailspin featured on MSNBC:
    "Now, the issue is 27 words. That's the 2nd Amendment's section on the right to bear arms. I'm going to read the 27 words. They say '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.' Now, it's a long-standing legal question in America, and largely unresolved, although partisans on both sides will say it is resolved but a majority of scholars would say it isn't. What does that mean? Does that mean that militias have the right to possess guns or individuals?"
    Wow. If only those comments could have been limited to 27 words.
    The Washington Post was not afflicted with such uncertainty, however, stating that the amendment applied only to militias (suddenly so popular with the media) and that the ruling was part of an "unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rifle Association… to give individuals 2nd Amendment rights." And you thought that campaign was led by the Founding Fathers.
    But what is the "militia"? It is not the army -- by contrast, it was seen as an antidote to having to keep a standing army. It was defined at the time of the Constitution’s writing roughly as "all able-bodied male citizens not in the regular military." (Theoretically it may thus be constitutionally permissible to deny guns to women, old men, cripples, and possibly fat people, but I have to admit I'm against this. These are precisely the groups of people that might need a gun most for self-defense, or possibly for procuring more food.) Viewed in this light, the liberal response to the ruling is, essentially, the right does not belong to the people, so much as it belongs to all civilians.
    What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collections. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government -- violence -- to themselves.
    The Founding Fathers systematically democratized the powers of society through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They democratized the power of law through the right to vote. They democratized the power of wealth through the right to private property (since repealed by environmentalists and courts). They democratized the power of ideas through the right to free speech (since repealed by McCain/Feingold). And they democratized the power of violence (or the capability to commit it) through the right to bear arms (since repealed by "gun control").
    The four great powers of man: law, money, thought and violence were thus divided among the people and not reserved exclusively to the connected, the rich, the approved, and the enlisted. That's the basis of our Republic. That's America. And that is, apparently, a total surprise to liberals. But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.
  15. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Keep your fingers crossed. This needs to make it to the supreme court for the final decision
  16. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    Beware the opposition! This came out today (exact as written, no edits or emphasis from me)

    Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

    This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.
    This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

    This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

    The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

    What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

    We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

    ... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

    … to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

    These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

    Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

    In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

    … And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

    Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.
    Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

    This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

    Your Friends at
  17. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Amen. Taking side bets on which way the Court will rule? List by the Justice, of course.[dunno]
  18. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Melbo (and some others), I know your skeptical of all this.... but....

    Maybe this is the "let's get it over with one way or the other" that we've been waiting for. Time to settle this crap once and for all, either the right to keep and bear or the revolution.
  19. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Maybe, but I have a sneaking suspicion the USSJC will refuse to hear the case if it gets past appelate. The Court has dodged this issue for a long time, and I fear that if it goes the conservative (literal reading) view, the pressure on Congress for another amendment will be overpowering. At least that will take a huge majority to pass (2/3?) not to mention ratification. Small comfort to the skeptics, but passing an amendment that will override one of the basic 10 will be a long and very difficult chore for the libs to even consider. I hope.
  20. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!! RARE FART OF SANITY? wafts outta DC? .Somethings not right...my tinfoil laden head tells me the lefties got something up their sleeves...Like on Jehricho last night The marines roll in at the darkest hour and everything's gonna bealright??? I aint selling my guns just yet...
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary