Am I missing somthing?

imported post

According to http://www.gunowners.org/The D.C. gun ban was overturned. However if you click on the link and read the text it states at the end that the District of Columbia is not a state and so it does not fall under the protection of the 2A because that only applies to militias and not to a person. And that only members of the national guard are considered militia. Did I miss read or miss something? That would appear to say that the gun ban is intact and ruled valid. Help?

imported post

I understand that it was overturned, but appealed to the SCOTUS and it probably is still in affect during the appeal.

imported post

Yes, the E in something.

imported post

Yes, you are missing something or your post is, a link to GOA making this argument that you repeat,

WhiteFeather wrote:

...it states at the end that the District of Columbia is not a state and so it does not fall under the protection of the 2A because that only applies to militias and not to a person. And that only members of the national guard are considered militia.

Click to expand...

This is DC's argument and not the GOA.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

imported post

Oops on the E part. :?

If you click on the link I provided and scroll down it has a button that says "D.C's Gun Ban overturned (text)" http://www.gunowners.com/dcbanoverturned.pdf

Towards the end of the text it states as follows.


[align=left]To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law[/align]

[align=left]and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State[/align]

[align=left]within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United[/align]

[align=left]States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment’s[/align]

[align=left]declaration and guarantee that “the right of the people to keep[/align]

[align=left]and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” relates to the Militia of[/align]

[align=left]the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to[/align]

[align=left]the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[/align]

[align=left]I underlined and put in bold the the part that confused me. Perhaps I am misreading something? I'm not advocating that the GOA is stating this. I believe this is part the court document relaying the ruling made. But it doesn't seem that any gun ban would be overturned with that line of thinking.[/align]

imported post

The cited .pdf, hosted by GOA is the court's decision. The quoted fragment is from
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting opinion and is indeed near the last paragraph of seventeen pages of her decision at the end of a seventy-five page document and thus quoted quite out of context. And I had to read it, rather than something I wanted to read, since I could not believe what you attributed to the GOA.

Yes. The District of Columbia is not a State but a District established by the Constitution and arguably not entitled to the protections or powers of a State. The dissenters to the Courts opinion are grasping at straws.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

imported post

Further, the Judge is exactly correct when she states "the Second Amendment does not apply to the District." She mistakes, though, the thrust of the Constitution, that it disables the powers of the government, with notable exceptions, and empowers the People of the United States and of The District of Columbia.

"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."

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

imported post

Just so I make myself perfectly clear. I was not attributing those comments to the GOA. I have nothing against the GOA and as soon as financially possible I plan on joining the GOA. I think it is a far superior organinzation in fighting for our 2A rights than the NRA. I simply was visiting their website as I often do and noticed the link. I had a very hard time understanding some of the PDF particulary at the end. It came to my attention that the comments I read were those of a dissenting view. I understand now that it was not the decision of supreme court but rather her opinion. I wanted some clearification. You provided that and I thank you. But please in the future do not feel obligated in helping me if you wish not too.