Second Amendment Ruling

Well, here’s a welcome court decision. 

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia’s long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.

The ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also threw out the district’s requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court will take the case and rule correctly. 

1. This goes to show the importance of judges.  Be sure to get out and vote for Annette Ziegler for Wisconsin State Supreme Court on April 3 if you agree with this type of decision.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2007 at 2026 hrs




2. It shouldn’t matter because judges are supposed to enforce laws and not enact them. But Corn is right it does matter.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2007 at 2100 hrs




3. I’ve been surprised to see so little commentary about this. The only other place I’d seen it was The Volokh Conspiracy. This could be absolutely huge.

   Posted by elliot on March 09, 2007 at 2149 hrs




4. This is a double edged sword coming up.  Supreme court decision will have huge ramifications.  If they decide to hear the case, we all better hunker down and pray the strict constitutionalists prevail!  If they refuse the case, breathe a sigh of relief and hope the states continue on a track which protects firearms ownership.  Most states are on track with concealed carry and now are on castle doctrine track.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 0000 hrs




5. A less selective reading of the 2nd amendment encounters the phrase “well regulated.”

   Boys, I think you might be in for some surprises with this Supreme Court. Roberts might be a Bush appointee, but the man is not a rube.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 0015 hrs




6. This reversal is quite a shocker to say the least.  I am all for the right to own a handgun, but I was surprised about the portion of the decision to no longer require trigger locks or keeping the gun unloaded.  (I personally believe trigger locks should be required if young children are in the household.)  This decision falls more in line with Maryland and Virginia (which has a concealed weapon provision as well). 

   I think the Court finally recognized that the ban on handguns did nothing to curb the murder rate in D.C.  It went back to that old saying that “if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns”.  D.C. will need to monitor if there is a spike in accidental shootings.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 0026 hrs




7. Why do you post here kr.
   Rube?

   noun
   not very intelligent or interested in culture [syn: yokel]

   Would that include all here? Even your buds?

   A less selective reading? Encounters the phrase well regulated?

   kr, that argument has been fought, you lost. Sorry Owen, I know I’m not supposed to make it personal. Sometimes it’s necessary.

   kr, you called me a boy. I’m personally offended by that. Please refrain from using that language again. I think I’m offended therefore Iam. Am I allowed to call you a girlie?
   YES             NO

   place an ex next to the box for your answer.

   Less Selective Reading, does anyone understand what that means?
   I’m feeling a penumbra of eminence? Or is it an eminence of penumbra? I’m sure of this it’s BS.

   Thanks kr, you help our cause daily.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 0203 hrs




8. kr,

   Have you read the opinion?  The Court addresses the “well regulated” point head on.

   Posted by Jed on March 10, 2007 at 0750 hrs




9. Well, that’s one district court out of the two that define it that way that versus the other nine that don’t. Hardly a landslide.

   Ched, no wonder you moved. Here is Wisconsin there is a phrase that goes you can dish it out but you can’t take it. I get far worse than that. Lick your imaginary wounds.

   If the founding fathers were alive today they would be askance at the way the second amendment has been misinterpreted by fear mongers and those with male inadequacies. They would see no place for automatic weapons in private hands.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2007 at 1015 hrs




10. Actually kr, you’re just dead wrong.

    Most historical documents and papers written during the debates over the Bill of Rights support that the citizenry should be allowed to bear firearms consistent with those kept in militia armories. Noah Webster (of Webster’s Dictionary fame) stated during the Constitutional debate “A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.”

    Those debates also support the belief that since it will be necessary to maintain a standing army to preserve freedom, only an armed citizenry can keep that army in check. Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to Madison ” “The few cases wherein these liberties may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government.” And more directly during the Constitutional Convention he stated, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    It seems that during any gun debate all of the liberal panty wastes conveniently forget that the framers were revolutionaries and wanted to ensure that they and those that came after them wouldn’t have to overthrow another government. The British tried to control the colonists by taking away their guns, if the British had succeeded we would all be singing Hail to the Queen.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2008 at 1939 hrs