Write your own Heller vs DC Decision!

[jdpate]

Here's mine (all in good fun):

Majority Opinion:
"It is the unequivocal position of this court that we have no business delegating the right of free men to defend themselves. Therefore we defer to the law-abiding individual citizen of the United States of America in all matters, including the decision to arm himself or to remain defenseless."

Dissent:
"And we suggest that you arm yourselves as quickly as possible...."

[WIG19]

As to the specific question granted in the writ, to wit, "Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS who are NOT affiliated with any State-Regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." the Court finds:

1. That District of Columbia continues to be bound by, and its citizens and residents should continue to enjoy the affirmations of pre-existing rights and responsibilities, as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended.

2. That the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a pre-existing individual right, which may or may not lead to greater competency at arms in the spirit of citizen service in defense of the Republic. Further, it is clear in any historic context that individual citizen right to keep, bear, store, transport, use, or engage in commerce of, firearms is a most basic individual right of a civilized people, that the framers gave this importance its due in the Bill of Rights, and it is not to be infringed or otherwise manipulated by any perceived privilege which may flow to the States to the adverse practice of same by all of a state's citizens.

3. That the District of Columbia's regulation of firearms as currently implemented constitutes flagrant prior restraint on law-abiding citizens within its municipal purview to the extent of constituting a denial of the basic right of self-protection and enjoyment of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The District's overarching regulation makes impossible any means that a citizen, obeying the existing law, would in extremis be able to render for themselves any defense of life in any term practicable and, further, this can be readily understood by any reasonable person.

4. The appeal is denied and the previous ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Parker et al v. District of Columbia is affirmed.

So say we all - even Aunt Ruth.

[ChamberedRound]

So say we all - even Aunt Ruth.

It'll be a cold day in Hell before that happens...

[WIG19]

It'll be a cold day in Hell before that happens...

LOL; that was my contribution to keeping the thread partially in the whimsical.

[freecitizen43]

Before I start, please forgive my "lack of humor" where the Constitution of the United States of America is concerned.
The Constitution is: the handcuffs, leg irons, collar and leash, and muzzle of the Federal Government. It states the powers, and limitations of that government, and establishes the freedoms of the citizens of the "several States". The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court is the defender of the Constitution, against the desires of the Federal Government to override those freedoms. It is my opinion that the Supreme Court must, always, rule in the "People's" behalf, and never side with the Federal Government.
That said, Heller Vs DC decision:
Articles in Addition To, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, Proposed by Congress, and Ratified by the Legislatures of the Several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.

Article II.
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.

Discussion: Those who would opt for gun control, always refer to the opening remark, "A well regulated Militia". This has never been clearly explained, but...
"being necessary to the security of a FREE State", not "The State", which would infer the Federal government, but a free state, the domain "of the People". The right "of the people"..not of the "Militia", to keep (own),and bear (carry and use) "arms" (weapons of the time) shall not be "infringed" (interfered with in any way, shape, or form).
The framers of the Constitution could not foresee the technological advancements in military weaponry. If they could have, they might have written limitations to what they meant as "arms". They did, however, understand that "arms" would evolve to more than muskets, and swords, and wrote the generic word for military weapons, "arms".

The Supreme Court, in overturning the District of Columbia's ban on hand guns, did what they were created to do.....defend the rights of the people from a government which desired to deprive the people of their rights.

As a resident of Illinois, living close enough to the dark empire of Chicago, and its power mad dictator ( mayor) I can't wait to see Dayley's anti gun laws overturned. He will, of course continue to have his thugs enforce those laws. He did, after all, bulldoze an active runway, without a Notice To Airmen, a federal law violation, and got away with it.
As a retired Navy enlisted, who served 1961-1983, I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, and would be happy to defend it, again, against all enemies, both foreign, and domestic.
The right, under Article II of the "Bill of Rights", is mine. I earned it.....for myself, and for all United States citizens. That right, and all other rights, are today being defended by volunteers, who are daily, giving their lives in that defense.
To seek the impeachment of the dissenting judges, in Heller VS DC, would be, in my opinion, the only acceptable action the "people" should take.
The opinion was asked for. Love it, hate it, or neither...there it be.


Vote not the party of your fathers, vote the candidate who most closely represents your own beliefs.......the only "wasted vote", is the one not cast.
Thank You for "listening".

[PocketProtector]

As a retired Navy enlisted, who served 1961-1983, I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, and would be happy to defend it, again, against all enemies, both foreign, and domestic.

Scarily, I do believe that the most dangerous enemy of this country is in fact Domestic.

[ChamberedRound]

Scarily, I do believe that the most dangerous enemy of this country is in fact Domestic.

Agreed, and I fear that it might be our own government, with the way this administration has acted.