• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

D.C. Gun Ban Overturned (sorry for the dupe) YEEEEHA!

30 cal slut

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
186
Location
, ,
imported post

Polishing the Glock in DC - DC Court upholds Second Amendment
Posted by Macranger on March 9th, 2007

Another victory for the 2nd Amendment, via How Appealing:

“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.

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.”

Read it again, “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”.

This is HUGE for gun rights and a devastating blow for gun control advocates who consitantly try to erode our right to bear arms.

Let it reverb across the land.


Here is the .pdf of the actual Circuit Court Ruling:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf
 

sitedzn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
449
Location
, ,
imported post

What they also conclude is that they aren't touching the arguement of being able to carry in public:

[align=left]Heller does not claim a legal right to carry a handgun outside his[/align]
[align=left]home, so we need not consider the more difficult issue whether[/align]
[align=left]the District can ban the carrying of handguns in public, or in[/align]
[align=left]automobiles.[/align]
[align=left]copied from pg. 57[/align]
 

Curtis Blades

New member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

The only place left is the US Supreme Court. They have not heard a gun case in over 70 years. I doubt they will hear this one. Which means it will stand. And should they hear it I think with the makeup of the court today, they would probably uphold the decision.

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/

And another, but I think they are connected.

http://www.nbc4.com/index.html
 

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
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
 
Top