-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Group Takes D.C. Gun Laws to Court
- Thread starter DoubleR
- Start date
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
I mean who has ever heard of a government saying "well I don't think we can buy those arms for our military, because there is law that says we have a right to do that?!?!?"
It's just crazy. This will be an interesting case to follow.
Mike wrote:
I just don't see how anyone can argue the "2nd Amendment should be interpreted on military terms" line with a straight face. Basically they are saying that the government passed an amendment to protect the governments right to military arms?!? I mean since when did any government need to amend anything to protect their right to own anything????
I mean who has ever heard of a government saying "well I don't think we can buy those arms for our military, because there is law that says we have a right to do that?!?!?"
It's just crazy. This will be an interesting case to follow.
Allen
Regular Member
imported post
Mike, I have a reply to your last post on Wickard. But I hesitate because it would take this thread further off topic.
Perhaps I should just start a new thread??
Back on topic: The "new" defense that is being used is taken, loosely, from a theory by Saul Cornell. Just new window dressing for the old "collective" theory.
Mike, I have a reply to your last post on Wickard. But I hesitate because it would take this thread further off topic.
Perhaps I should just start a new thread??
Back on topic: The "new" defense that is being used is taken, loosely, from a theory by Saul Cornell. Just new window dressing for the old "collective" theory.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Polls & News Items so far on what may be the most significant court case this century.
Hit this poll, lower right side: http://www.nbc4.com/index.html
And this poll: http://www.wtop.com
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0307/404231.html, with video
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&Date=20070309&ID=6596705, with video
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2938719
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/national/main2554309.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/dc_gun_ban
Polls & News Items so far on what may be the most significant court case this century.
Hit this poll, lower right side: http://www.nbc4.com/index.html
And this poll: http://www.wtop.com
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0307/404231.html, with video
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&Date=20070309&ID=6596705, with video
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2938719
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/national/main2554309.shtml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/dc_gun_ban
Curtis Blades
New member
imported post
Hello all,
Please find an online poll regarding the DC Gun Ban and today's important
court decision at the below link. This is a Washington, DC media outlet and
it would be great if the response was an overwhelming Yes!
Please vote and cross-post to your other message boards and networks.
More information on today's DC Court ruling will appear in tonight's
Grassroots Alert. Stay tuned.
http://www.wtopnews.com/
Thanks!
Hello all,
Please find an online poll regarding the DC Gun Ban and today's important
court decision at the below link. This is a Washington, DC media outlet and
it would be great if the response was an overwhelming Yes!
Please vote and cross-post to your other message boards and networks.
More information on today's DC Court ruling will appear in tonight's
Grassroots Alert. Stay tuned.
http://www.wtopnews.com/
Thanks!
imported post
Why is this case "the most significant"? Most other circuits have ruled the other way. I think the 5th is the only other "individual right" circuit. Unless and until the Supreme Court accepts this notion, most of the country is still out in the cold.
Why is this case "the most significant"? Most other circuits have ruled the other way. I think the 5th is the only other "individual right" circuit. Unless and until the Supreme Court accepts this notion, most of the country is still out in the cold.
rlh2005
Founder's Club Member
imported post
apjonas wrote:
apjonas wrote:
Laws should have the same meaning and interpretation whether in Kalamazoo, MI; Washington, DC; Miami, FL; San Diego, CA; or the middle of no-where. With inconsistent views among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court must act to reestablish a status quo.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
apjonas wrote:
The 2d Cir. does not hold 2A as nugatory, just that it does not apply to the states - per binding old US SC case.I think Miller already stands for 2A as ind. right.
According to Parker majority, at least 7 state appelalte courts hold that 2A provides an individual right. See also Kazinski dissent in 9th Cir. case, cited in Parker.
Finally, "the country is not out in the cold" - state courts are free to decide federal questions anew as the leading Cir. CVt. view under Emerson-Miller is that 2A provides an individual right against federal regulation of arms keeping & bearing.
apjonas wrote:
"Significance" lies in the striking down of a law under ind. rights reading of 2A, somthing not done in Emerson.
The 2d Cir. does not hold 2A as nugatory, just that it does not apply to the states - per binding old US SC case.I think Miller already stands for 2A as ind. right.
According to Parker majority, at least 7 state appelalte courts hold that 2A provides an individual right. See also Kazinski dissent in 9th Cir. case, cited in Parker.
Finally, "the country is not out in the cold" - state courts are free to decide federal questions anew as the leading Cir. CVt. view under Emerson-Miller is that 2A provides an individual right against federal regulation of arms keeping & bearing.
Allen
Regular Member
imported post
apjonas wrote:
Why? Because, for the first time in our history, a Federal Appeals Court has actually struck down gun laws, as being unconstitutional, based solely upon Second Amendment grounds. That's why.
The 5th Circuit in Emerson, did not strike any laws. It merely held the right to be individual, but subject to reasonable restrictions. It did not hold that the right was a primary right to be held to strict scrutiny. As such, the Lautenberg amendment (Title 18 922(g)(9)) was held as a reasonable restriction (and by reference, all gun laws). Emerson's conviction was sustained.
The 5th Circuit's decision was that the 2nd was an individual right, but a right that had no teeth.
Here, the D.C. Circuit provided not just teeth, but fangs!
Two laws were struck down: 1) It is no longer necessary to register a handgun for use strictly within your home nor is it a crime to move the firearm from room to room within the home (D.C. Code 22-4504) and 2) keep it in a disassembled (unusable) state (D.C. Code 7-2507.02).
Further, the D.C. Circuit held that the 2A right is an individual right and that the implements of the right may not be outright banned. That the firearms do not have to have a direct relationship to the Militia (e.g. Miller), but may be any firearm in use today.
D.C. Mayor Fenty has said that they will appeal. That leaves only two avenues open. They can appeal to the entire Circuit (en banc), a course that is not always wise, as en banc appeals are rarely given or they can appeal directly to the Supreme Court. (yes, the City can appeal to the SCOTUS if they lose the en banc appeal)
D.C. will, of course, ask for a stay in execution of the Circuits ruling while the appeal is still pending. Do not assume that this stay will be automatically granted. It's a coin toss.
As of this moment, two of D.C.'s gun laws have been struck... And by inference, any other laws banning the use of firearms for personal defense in other federal enclaves (military housing may not be affected as they fall under military jurisdiction and would have to be adjudicated there first).
Also of note are the political ramifications. This ruling (and any appeals) will play heavily in the 2008 presidential race.
apjonas wrote:
Why? Because, for the first time in our history, a Federal Appeals Court has actually struck down gun laws, as being unconstitutional, based solely upon Second Amendment grounds. That's why.
The 5th Circuit in Emerson, did not strike any laws. It merely held the right to be individual, but subject to reasonable restrictions. It did not hold that the right was a primary right to be held to strict scrutiny. As such, the Lautenberg amendment (Title 18 922(g)(9)) was held as a reasonable restriction (and by reference, all gun laws). Emerson's conviction was sustained.
The 5th Circuit's decision was that the 2nd was an individual right, but a right that had no teeth.
Here, the D.C. Circuit provided not just teeth, but fangs!
Two laws were struck down: 1) It is no longer necessary to register a handgun for use strictly within your home nor is it a crime to move the firearm from room to room within the home (D.C. Code 22-4504) and 2) keep it in a disassembled (unusable) state (D.C. Code 7-2507.02).
Further, the D.C. Circuit held that the 2A right is an individual right and that the implements of the right may not be outright banned. That the firearms do not have to have a direct relationship to the Militia (e.g. Miller), but may be any firearm in use today.
D.C. Mayor Fenty has said that they will appeal. That leaves only two avenues open. They can appeal to the entire Circuit (en banc), a course that is not always wise, as en banc appeals are rarely given or they can appeal directly to the Supreme Court. (yes, the City can appeal to the SCOTUS if they lose the en banc appeal)
D.C. will, of course, ask for a stay in execution of the Circuits ruling while the appeal is still pending. Do not assume that this stay will be automatically granted. It's a coin toss.
As of this moment, two of D.C.'s gun laws have been struck... And by inference, any other laws banning the use of firearms for personal defense in other federal enclaves (military housing may not be affected as they fall under military jurisdiction and would have to be adjudicated there first).
Also of note are the political ramifications. This ruling (and any appeals) will play heavily in the 2008 presidential race.
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
Here is an interesting blog on the Supreme Court. The writer discusses the different reasons that the Court will or will not take the Parker case.
The Second Amendment: Is the Court interested?
Here is an interesting blog on the Supreme Court. The writer discusses the different reasons that the Court will or will not take the Parker case.
The Second Amendment: Is the Court interested?
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
rlh2005 wrote:
Must be a yankee.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
rlh2005 wrote:
So much for States Rights and Federalism. Once upon a time - or to a sailor, TINS, our Nation was conceived as a Republic of Federated Sovereign States standing together for the common good. Now states are mere counties, shires in the national tyrant's backyard.
Must be a yankee.
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
Allen
Regular Member
imported post
Doug, It hasn't been that way since Lincoln and the Civil War.
Regardless, the second amendment should mean the same thing in each Circuit. It is the very same Federal Constitution, regardless of which State one is in...
Doug, It hasn't been that way since Lincoln and the Civil War.
Regardless, the second amendment should mean the same thing in each Circuit. It is the very same Federal Constitution, regardless of which State one is in...
TEX1N
Regular Member
imported post
Allen wrote:
Allen wrote:
Agreed!
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
Allen wrote:
Things changed after the Civil War, but the real question is whether that's a good thing.
The answer is, certainlynot. The federation should have been preserved without granting unconstitutional power to the federal government. That was purely a political move without any constitutional authority.
As a result, we now have a federal government that has arrogated power to itself far beyond its constituional authority to do so, without submitting itself to a correspondingly higher degree of political answerability to the people. So we have a powerful government far removed from the people, and an unelectedSupreme Court that ignores our constitutional rights at its whim and sets policy-- this is really a tyrannical form of government. All it takes is 5 people to rule the nation.
Allen wrote:
Things changed after the Civil War, but the real question is whether that's a good thing.
The answer is, certainlynot. The federation should have been preserved without granting unconstitutional power to the federal government. That was purely a political move without any constitutional authority.
As a result, we now have a federal government that has arrogated power to itself far beyond its constituional authority to do so, without submitting itself to a correspondingly higher degree of political answerability to the people. So we have a powerful government far removed from the people, and an unelectedSupreme Court that ignores our constitutional rights at its whim and sets policy-- this is really a tyrannical form of government. All it takes is 5 people to rule the nation.
The Donkey
New member
imported post
Mike wrote:
Yes: for this reason this is very significant decision& probably the most significant yet on 2A.But that is only ifthe Supreme Court ultimately accepts cert.
By Judge Henderson's count, 9 other federal circuits have a different view of 2A.
The safe money is always betting against cert given that there is less than a 1 in 100 chance that the SCOTUSwill review any case.
Here, though --for numerous reasons --I agree with the MSM: this is one thatis likely togoall the way.
But Parker still allows for "reasonable" regulation of firearms. The reason that the DC law was struck down -- and that the case was such a good vehicle for 2A--wasthat the gun ban itself was an extremely strictgun prohibition. The Court telegraphs in dicta that itwould not consider a lot of othergunlegislation (such as concealed carry and certain open carry restrictions) as inherently "unreasonable" and therefore a violation of 2A. It doesn't describeany objective standard for distinguishing "reasonable" from "unreasonable" gun restrictions.
The 5th Cir. in Emersonused a balancing test for judging constitutionality under 2A: but not the same "strict scrutiny" Courts use to evaluate restictions of First Amendment freedoms ie: "is the restriction necessary to serve a compelling state interest?"
If the Supreme Court takes thiscase up, they are likely to affirm the Circuit Court in Parker.
If the Supreme Court affirms Parker, there will be a rush to the Courts to challenge a whole lot of other gun control legislation as "unreasonable."
But veryfew courts, if any,are ultimately going apply "strict scrutiny" to questions of what kinds of gun control are constitutional. And I don't think that we can take it for granted that the Courts are going to agree with many readers here as to what kind of gun regualtion is "reasonable."
Parker may be the end of some of the stupidist and most annoying formsof gun regulation -- like the DC gun ban.But other gun laws will stand. Parker will not result in universal open carry, for example.
The most important fights over gun rights will remain where they always have been: in Congress and state legislatures.
Mike wrote:
Yes: for this reason this is very significant decision& probably the most significant yet on 2A.But that is only ifthe Supreme Court ultimately accepts cert.
By Judge Henderson's count, 9 other federal circuits have a different view of 2A.
The safe money is always betting against cert given that there is less than a 1 in 100 chance that the SCOTUSwill review any case.
Here, though --for numerous reasons --I agree with the MSM: this is one thatis likely togoall the way.
But Parker still allows for "reasonable" regulation of firearms. The reason that the DC law was struck down -- and that the case was such a good vehicle for 2A--wasthat the gun ban itself was an extremely strictgun prohibition. The Court telegraphs in dicta that itwould not consider a lot of othergunlegislation (such as concealed carry and certain open carry restrictions) as inherently "unreasonable" and therefore a violation of 2A. It doesn't describeany objective standard for distinguishing "reasonable" from "unreasonable" gun restrictions.
The 5th Cir. in Emersonused a balancing test for judging constitutionality under 2A: but not the same "strict scrutiny" Courts use to evaluate restictions of First Amendment freedoms ie: "is the restriction necessary to serve a compelling state interest?"
If the Supreme Court takes thiscase up, they are likely to affirm the Circuit Court in Parker.
If the Supreme Court affirms Parker, there will be a rush to the Courts to challenge a whole lot of other gun control legislation as "unreasonable."
But veryfew courts, if any,are ultimately going apply "strict scrutiny" to questions of what kinds of gun control are constitutional. And I don't think that we can take it for granted that the Courts are going to agree with many readers here as to what kind of gun regualtion is "reasonable."
Parker may be the end of some of the stupidist and most annoying formsof gun regulation -- like the DC gun ban.But other gun laws will stand. Parker will not result in universal open carry, for example.
The most important fights over gun rights will remain where they always have been: in Congress and state legislatures.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
TEX1N wrote:
I'm in your camp on this one, TEx1n. The military and collective-right angle mingle, too.
One doesn't need to dig into the scholarshipor study 200 yrs of case history and Founders' writings to spot the invalidity of the arguments.
Another reason it can't be a military meaning: Tyrannical gov'tshave no problem conscipting people andgetting weapons to defend themselves from outside threat or insurrection.
In the various forms of democracy, the "state" is the people.One can't very well claimeverybody as a groupis worth protecting unless one considersthe individualswho comprise thegroup worth individual protection. The collective-right theoristsactually have their disregardand lack of decency towards their fellow human beings brightly illuminated by their theory. They never saw the individual as worth protecting. They never built up their concept of a state from an individual, and thus never noticed the inconsistency in their logic. We need to "call" them on their disregard and lack of decencyfor their fellow human beings. Its pretty uncaring, callous, or cold-blooded to think your fellow man doesn't deserve to be able to defend himself.
TEX1N wrote:
I'm in your camp on this one, TEx1n. The military and collective-right angle mingle, too.
One doesn't need to dig into the scholarshipor study 200 yrs of case history and Founders' writings to spot the invalidity of the arguments.
Another reason it can't be a military meaning: Tyrannical gov'tshave no problem conscipting people andgetting weapons to defend themselves from outside threat or insurrection.
In the various forms of democracy, the "state" is the people.One can't very well claimeverybody as a groupis worth protecting unless one considersthe individualswho comprise thegroup worth individual protection. The collective-right theoristsactually have their disregardand lack of decency towards their fellow human beings brightly illuminated by their theory. They never saw the individual as worth protecting. They never built up their concept of a state from an individual, and thus never noticed the inconsistency in their logic. We need to "call" them on their disregard and lack of decencyfor their fellow human beings. Its pretty uncaring, callous, or cold-blooded to think your fellow man doesn't deserve to be able to defend himself.
Kelly J
Regular Member
imported post
This ruling came down from the D.C. Circuit :
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.
Oh heres the LINK
This ruling came down from the D.C. Circuit :
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.
Oh heres the LINK