DC Circuit strikes down DC Gun law, rules Second Amendment protects individual rights

[Catalina]

Limbaugh covering it now!!.... 1:35 EDT 3/9/07

[phillyd2]

You guys should read it, its not that hard reading despite the lawyerly crap. The main thing is on top of page 4: "We reverse". But the reasons why start about at III on page 12. This type of A to B to C to D logically dissection is not everybody's cup of tea but to me its heaven. For example, read page 18 (A) where they answer the question of who are "The People". Brilliant!

Anyway, great day for freedom.

See, one day after PAFOA becomes official DC is free!!!!!!

[Catalina]

Senior Judge Silverman’s majority opinion summarized 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.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3589.html

[Frenchy]

that's like trying to read the Bible in its original form!

I'll just have to trust you who are more knowledgeable on this subject...
cuz reedin' iz HARRD!

Try it when English is not your original language, and when US law is not your original Laws.

You guys should read it, its not that hard reading despite the lawyerly crap. The main thing is on top of page 4: "We reverse". But the reasons why start about at III on page 12. This type of A to B to C to D logically dissection is not everybody's cup of tea but to me its heaven. For example, read page 18 (A) where they answer the question of who are "The People". Brilliant!

Here is how I read that.

(“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”)

(“A well regulated Militia,{the army} being necessary to the security of a
free State,{keeps the country free} the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” {but the people with guns keep the army honest}) Basically saying just because we do have an army is not a good reason to not allow the people to own and carry guns to protect themselves. To me its simple english...

Anyway, great day for freedom.
See, one day after PAFOA becomes official DC is free!!!!!!

Dan you sly fox! you never told us you where this good See thats why so many of us supported you when you said you wanted to go further with this and establish a .org

[sams819]

MAYBE FAST EDDIE WILL READ THIS DECISION, AND PULL OUT HIS NEVER USED COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE.

[sams819]

THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. WHY WOULD THE FOUNDERS MAKE THE SECOND ADMENDMENT FOR THE STATE? THEY DIDN,T, JUST READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. IT IS THE POEPLES RIGHT. NOT SOME STATE ARMY.

[Rule10b5]

I just finished reading most of it.

It's a solid, well-written, and very defensible opinion. No bullshit, no streching, no getting cute with language or statutory interpretation.

The case is significant for a few reasons.

First, every case that goes our way helps, even if we aren't in the DC Circuit.

Second, there is now a definite split among the Federal Appellate Circuits. The 5th and the DC have sided with gunnies, holding that there is an individual RKBA, while the 9th and others have said that it is a collective militia right.

This means that the issue is now "ripe" for consideration by the Supreme Court. Given the current makeup, it couldn't have come at a better time. Even Ginsburg (cited favorably in Parker) isn't bad for us.

Most important, however, is that this is a "clean" challenge. The case doesn't involve the RKBA in the context of a criminal or any sort of scumbag. We have good, honest, folks who've sued D.C. That has a huge psychological impact for the judges and the public. Basically, it's a case where the judges can consider the legal issues, without being colored by the facts.

This is, truly, one of the best cases for gun rights in a long, long time.

[1FingrCHan]

If I am one of the folks who live in DC, I would go out and buy a gun right now. I hope the anti has some sense and leave the 2A alone here in PA too. Good news to hear.



1FingrCHan

[phillyd2]

NEWS RELEASE

D.C. APPEALS COURT RULING HOLDS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHT’

BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the 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.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.”

[Brick]

Here's a quick and dirty summary of the decision, offered with thanks to Magus at talk.guns.politics.


Parker V. DC
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

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.