DC Court rules 2nd amendment an 'individual right'

[Jerk]

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153


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.

---

Ok, that makes 2 out of 3.

5th circuit court ruled 'individual right' in the Emmerson Case.
9th cirtcuit court ruled 'collective right' not so long ago.

[Xstnlsooner]

THAT is some good news!! Someone send Hillary and Pelosi a copy...

[TUSooner]

bitchin

[PAW]

9th cirtcuit court ruled 'collective right' not so long ago.

Heh, the 9th circuit's batting average hasn't been very good lately on cases that have gone to the Supreme Court.

[Jerk]

Heh, the 9th circuit's batting average hasn't been very good lately on cases that have gone to the Supreme Court.

lol that's funny:D

[Jerk]

Some quotes from the ruling:


"[T]he right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges 'the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,' 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, the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right 'shall not be infringed.'"

"The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords with Blackstone’s observation, which had influenced thinking in the American colonies, that the people’s right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation. The right of selfpreservation, in turn, 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."

"The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty."

"With respect to the right to defend oneself against tyranny and oppression, some have argued that the Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant because the arms it protects, even if commonly owned, would be of no use when opposed to the arsenal of the modern state. But as Judge Kozinski has noted, incidents such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 provide rather dramatic evidence to the contrary. The deterrent effect of a well-armed populace is surely more important than the probability of overall success in a full-out armed conflict."