[url=http://www.drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf]PDF FILE ONLY ~ 75 PAGE DECISION[/url]
Paul - Have you read the PDF? Are there 75-words or less you can copy/paste from the PDF giving us the decision meat?
It's unusual to find a PDF file which will allow anything but viewing or printing. It's possible to block printing, and rare for the author to set file attributes to allow copying.
Uh....so what? In the [i]old days[/i] the fallback position to what you're describing would be [i]transcribing[/i]. I do it all the time.
To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendmentâ€™s declaration and guarantee that â€œthe right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringedâ€ relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, ...
Scott, I hope this is not to long, it is needed to get the summary. And it is public document. [quote]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
Amendmentâ€™s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individualâ€™s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.
This is a bigee....I have not read the opinion yet but it is being reported that the Appeals court found an Individual right!!!
A court that can read the Constitution and resist the tempation to rewrite it
While great news, this case addressed a very narrow issue. I think the only issue addressed here was whether these plaintiffs had a right to possess these firearms [i]in their own respective homes[/i]. The lawsuit did not challenge the districts rules regarding registration of firearms; nor were the plaintiffs seeking to be able to carry firearms outside the home.
I have long dreamed of an America where you can exercise your 2nd Amendment Right openly without harrassment. It would be so nice to see people walking down American streets with guns in a peaceful, responsible manner, without SWAT teams showing up.
It's time the hundred Million gun owners in this nation got up on their hind legs and demanded their rights back. The Constitution is on our side!
I wonder if DC is going to push this to the Supremes, or if they are just going to run away to fight another day.
How would Roberts, et al rule on this?
"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued a statement calling the decision "judicial activism at its worst.""
We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a wellregulated militiaâ€”even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militiaâ€”is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect â€œthe right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,â€ but rather â€œthe right of the people.â€ The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the draftersâ€™ view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the rightâ€™s most salient political benefitâ€”and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document.
[i]The operative clause, properly read, [color=blue]protects the ownership and use of [u]weaponry[/u] [/color][color=red][u]beyond[/u][/color][color=blue] [u]that needed to preserve the state militias[/u].[/color] [/i]
Don't get me wrong- I like the sounds of this- but I think this conflicts with the Supreme Court's [u]Miller[/u] precedent.
Interesting media on this:
CNS: [i]"Even though the nation's capital had one of the strictest gun bans in the country, it also suffers from one of the five-highest murders rates of major cities nationwide."[/i]
Bet you won't find too many mentions of that fact in the MSM.
[i]AP: "Even as the appeals court overturned the D.C. ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still ``subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.''
"Such restrictions might include gun registration to provide the government with information about how many people would be armed if militia service was required, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill."[/i]
Bloomberg: "[i] Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons..."[/i]
No bias there!
DalekMagi, if only a few hundred started to carry their guns openly, it would only be a short time before it caught on, to become a common thing. I have carried mine openly in many places and have yet to be questioed.
Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke On DC Circuit's Ruling Striking Down DC Handgun Law
For Immediate Release:
Washington, D.C. â€“ Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
â€œThe 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbiaâ€™s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.
â€œThis ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that â€˜reasonable restrictionsâ€™ to promote â€˜the governmentâ€™s interest in public safetyâ€™ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. â€
[i]â€œThis ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. "[/i]
Well it's about [b][size=14]Â£*Ã§#!Ã±@[/size][/b] time !!!!!
I loved that line too, it is also the first time that an Individual right was central to the case and not just dicta as in Emmerson.
There has been such a backlash to the Brady Bunch - in the last 10-15 years almost all states have adopted eased CWP allowances - that all I can tell them is "just keep doing what you are doing".
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban (Update2)
By Cary O'Reilly
March 9 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.
I agree with you guys talking about open carry. A right not exercised is a right at risk.
Where is Wingman when you feel like gloating? By the way, it was a decent day for governmental protection of our rights against the government. The MISuse of the Patriot Act got top billing today. FBI crying in their beer, etc. Who says freedom is dead?
[quote="JIMV"] By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedentâ€[/quote]
One wonders if the good Mr. Helmke has ever read the Miller decision in whole or in part.
It is about time this happened. Let's hope that this is challenged by the District and gets to the Supreme Court. 8)
Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 9, 2007
Linda Singer, the districtâ€™s acting attorney general, said the decision was â€œa huge setback.â€
â€œWeâ€™ve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence, and this sends us in a different direction,â€ Ms. Singer said.
Some good gun related news!!!
"...a different direction, my **...."
Let it send them in the direction of the criminally-minded and not the ordinary citizen.
"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".
Where in the above does it say this:
..."While acknowledging that â€˜reasonable restrictionsâ€™ to promote â€˜the governmentâ€™s interest in public safetyâ€™ are permitted by the Second Amendment"....
[quote]"The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to bear arms was not created by government, but rater preserved by it."[/quote]
Here's what the NRA has to say about this:
Wapo: "[i]In a 1996 dissent while serving on the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., now a justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that he would have struck down a federal law regulating the possession of machine guns under the commerce clause of the Constitution." [/i]
That's very good news.
NYT:[i] "The majority in yesterdayâ€™s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which â€œat least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read â€˜bear armsâ€™ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.â€ They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter[/i]
That's a total of four right there.