DC Circuit Court of Appeals say pistolas okay in DC!

[Okla-homey]

Yay! The DCCA went very broad and I'm gonna celebrate. Broadest reading of the Second Amendment evar. I hope the Supreme Court grants cert and settles this once and for all.


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.

In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

"I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. He said the D.C. circuit is historically influential with the Supreme Court because it often deals with constitutional questions.

"You also have a very well-reasoned opinion, both in the majority and the dissent," Turley said.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

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, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said the decision gives the district "a crack in the door to join the rest of the country in full constitutional freedom."

A spokeswoman for the district attorney general's office declined to comment on the ruling.

[Jerk]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90332

Awesome news. I bet they review it "en banc" or however you lawyer types say it.

Some more quotes at my link.

[Okla-homey]

If a petition for an en banc review were granted, just based on the composition of the court, I bet it would be 6-4 against the gun haters.

[Vaevictis]

I really do hope that the Supreme Court does take this up and finally issues a clear, authoritative ruling.

Personally, I lean towards a collective right in the 2nd AND an individual right in the 9th -- and would prefer to see both a collective and individual right endorsed by the Court -- but more than anything, I would like the ambiguity cleared up once and for all.

[Rogue]

My interpretation is that the founders intended the citizens to be sufficiently armed to be able to overthrow an oppressive government. In addition to self-defense, property rights, and recreation I think our guns are safe. I'm not sure what we'd gain by this going to the SC, except maybe the ability to buy and own tanks and planes. :)

[Okla-homey]

If the Supremes do grant cert and rule against the gun-haters, I just hope they don't decide guns are a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny of government regulation. That would be too far to the other extreme IMHO. If that happens, it would be a royal pain in the posterior to craft narrowly tailored statutes and regulations to keep guns out of the hands of certain folks who most reasonable people agree don't have any business owning them. For that reason, I bet at best, they'll find it's an individual right triggering some sort of intermediate-level scrutiny of government regulation.

The other thing that is cool about this, is if SCOTUS does affirm, I should think all those folks around NOLA who had their guns confiscated immediately post-Katrina might now have a cause of action to sue under section 1983.:eek: :D Woot!

[Rogue]

Some things are better left vague.

[Okla-homey]

Some things are better left vague.

Vagueness is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways.

[1stTimeCaller]

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.


Great idea Karen. What other Constitutional rights are the residents of DC not able to excersise?

Her comment just makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm not looking at it right.

[Rogue]

No, you're looking at it fine. It doesn't make any damn sense at all. Mebbe she's been brain warshed by the cool DC license plates that say "Taxation Without Representation."

[Jerk]

Homey, if this goes right, will I finally be able to own my dream weapon: The MG-42

?

[olevetonahill]

Isnt it kinda important that its the 2nd amendment
the 2nd has been more scrutinized and criticised , than any other .
How Hard is it to understand ?
The " right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed "
Any one up for another Tea Party ? :confused:

[Vaevictis]

the 2nd has been more scrutinized and criticised , than any other .

Except by the people who really matter. IIRC, the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job of dodging the issue over the years.


How Hard is it to understand ?
The " right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed "

Apparently the same difficulty as understanding that when you strip out half of a sentence, you're probably changing the meaning. If that's ALL that sentence said, then there would likely be zero controversy.

However, some people take the first half of that sentence to imply a meaning other than an individual right to bear arms.

[olevetonahill]

Except by the people who really matter. IIRC, the Supreme Court has done a pretty good job of dodging the issue over the years.



Apparently the same difficulty as understanding that when you strip out half of a sentence, you're probably changing the meaning. If that's ALL that sentence said, then there would likely be zero controversy.

However, some people take the first half of that sentence to imply a meaning other than an individual right to bear arms.
So on that same thinking your saying that Congress shall not establish a religion , says Separation of church and State ?
you way to liberal for me . Im a slightly right Con . Oh and Ill give up My guns when YOU can pry em from My cold dead hands !:P

[Vaevictis]

Oh and Ill give up My guns when YOU can pry em from My cold dead hands !:P

*yawn* Such a trite, tired saying, and yet so true. If the government wants your guns, that's exactly what they'll do.

Just ask the Branch Davidians.

[TUSooner]

Interesting that even the dissent evidently did not buy the "militia only" argument.
And if this right is regulated in the same manner as the 1st Am. ---be ready for some seriously bad sausage making.*


*"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." ~
Otto von Bismarck

[olevetonahill]

*yawn* Such a trite, tired saying, and yet so true. If the government wants your guns, that's exactly what they'll do.

Just ask the Branch Davidians.

Then try this statement " geterdone "
Yall libs have the easy part done
Talking about it . Now lets get to the DOING !
I have a deal for you . I can already tell I pretty much despise you , and I dont think Im on your friends list so lets just ignore each other ? and be Sooner Fans .
:cool:

[Vaevictis]

Then try this statement " geterdone "

You're assuming one thing which is false: That I want your guns. You're welcome to them as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just saying: "They can pry them from my cold dead hands" is a pretty silly comment considering that they've shown that they're willing to do exactly that.

[olevetonahill]

You're assuming one thing which is false: That I want your guns. You're welcome to them as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just saying: "They can pry them from my cold dead hands" is a pretty silly comment considering that they've shown that they're willing to do exactly that.
They are willing to Take em ,We are willing to give em up, that way :P
It aint a silly Comment If you are willing to Die defending it .

[BigRedJed]

Great idea Karen. What other Constitutional rights are the residents of DC not able to excersise?

Her comment just makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm not looking at it right.
You know that they literally have no voting congressional representation, right? Other than the ability possessed by their lone (non-voting) congresswoman to vote in committee and to address the congress, they have zero say in the federal government.

[Vaevictis]

They are willing to Take em ,We are willing to give em up, that way :P
It aint a silly Comment If you are willing to Die defending it .

Nah, it's a silly comment.

If they come to take your guns, you have no hope of stopping them. What's the point in dying on top of it? Better to let them take the guns now, survive, get with some like-minded people, and take them back later.

[1stTimeCaller]

I did not know that. That's why I asked the question at the end.

Can they say what they want to? Was alcohol prohibited in DC during prohibition?

[BigRedJed]

They have the same rights as other Americans, they just don't have a voice in congress with a vote to back it up. And I misspoke, they do have some say in government. They are allowed to vote for the Presidential candidate of their choice.

I don't know the details, but I'm sure the 18th amendment (prohibition) applied to DC in exactly the same manner in which it applied to everywhere else.

[BigRedJed]

The 18th amendment applied to all territories:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

[1stTimeCaller]

They have the same rights as other Americans, ...

that's where I got confused. I read the Judge's comment about the 2nd Amendment not being applicable because DC isn't a state and wondered about what other rights the Judge doesn't think apply to the people of DC.

Thanks for the info. DC is a place I've often wondered about but have never looked into how it works.

[olevetonahill]

Nah, it's a silly comment.

If they come to take your guns, you have no hope of stopping them. What's the point in dying on top of it? Better to let them take the guns now, survive, get with some like-minded people, and take them back later.
Ok bro Im GONNA Apologize to you . I dont despise you , nor anyone else here . I was kinda caught up in some bad news when I said thta
Please forgive me

[Vaevictis]

Ok bro Im GONNA Apologize to you . I dont despise you , nor anyone else here . I was kinda caught up in some bad news when I said thta
Please forgive me

No sweat at all. Hope things look up for you.

[BigRedJed]

Ok bro Im GONNA Apologize to you . I dont despise you , nor anyone else here . I was kinda caught up in some bad news when I said thta
Please forgive me
Vet, I was going to spek you for this class post, but apparently I've speked you too recently. Anyway, good jorb.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, if this goes right, will I finally be able to own my dream weapon: The MG-42

?

I'm betting that SCOTUS won't find the Second constitutionally on par with the First. Therefore, reasonable regulation of gun rights will still be possible. What does that mean in "dog years" in the real world? I'm betting that just as you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater despite your fundamental right to free speech under the First, I bet you won't be able to own an MG-42 or buy a Stinger MANPAD under a broader reading of the Second.;)

[Jerk]

Nah, it's a silly comment.

If they come to take your guns, you have no hope of stopping them. What's the point in dying on top of it? Better to let them take the guns now, survive, get with some like-minded people, and take them back later.

There are 300,000,000 guns in America. The only way the .gov could get them all would be to go through each house, dwelling, apartment, etc. Could you imagine the cost alone of such an adventure? Also, you're not going to have most of the military and police agree to such search and siezures (at least the good ones who uphold their oath to the constitution, cuz' it's not just the 2nd amendment they'd be violating). Yeah, you can say "look what happened to the branch davidians," but that is far different than trying to conquer the entire population.

[Jerk]

I'm betting that SCOTUS won't find the Second constitutionally on par with the First. Therefore, reasonable regulation of gun rights will still be possible. What does that mean in "dog years" in the real world? I'm betting that just as you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater despite your fundamental right to free speech under the First, I bet you won't be able to own an MG-42 or buy a Stinger MANPAD under a broader reading of the Second.;)

5-4 for individual right, with the dissent arguing that the 2nd was drafted for the national guard, created in 1917:D

From a VERY liberal attorney from Denton, TX about the decision:

Finally, the opinion is well founded in existing law; acknowledges the need to balance Second Amendment with other provisions of the Constitution and provides meaning to the Second Amendment beyond the chants of 'What do you not understand about not infringed' and 'We must ban firearms for the children.'

This opinion cannot be read to mean that the machine gun ban will be tossed out; that you will be able to carry a pistol into a bar even it that is prohibited by law; that you can import all the weapons from abroad that come to mind or that home building machine guns will be recognized as a hobby.

At some point, firearms regulations would be unreasonable. This case probably means we have reached that point.

[Vaevictis]

There are 300,000,000 guns in America. The only way the .gov could get them all would be to go through each house, dwelling, apartment, etc. Could you imagine the cost alone of such an adventure? Also, you're not going to have most of the military and police agree to such search and siezures (at least the good ones who uphold their oath to the constitution, cuz' it's not just the 2nd amendment they'd be violating). Yeah, you can say "look what happened to the branch davidians," but that is far different than trying to conquer the entire population.

Well, putting aside the fact that I was talking about the government's wanting to take the guns of a specific individual (hypothetically olevet, in this case), if they decide they want to do this, they're not going to go whole hog all at once.

They'll go after the more "objectionable" firearms first, maybe not even technically make them illegal, maybe just make them de facto illegal by requiring a certain stamp but refusing to issue the stamps for certain classes of weaponry. Then they'll move it on down the line, in say, 20 year increments.

Besides -- and let's assume an amendment allowing the government wholesale regulation of firearm ownership here -- if they wanted to take away your guns, and they really wanted it to be effective, they'd probably just make private trade in and ownership of gunpowder illegal. You'll run out sooner or later, and well, if they think you've got a supply, for the vast majority of people, they could just walk a properly trained dog on the nearby sidewalk, and they'd have probable cause to search the place when the dog smelled the stuff.

Technically, they might not even need an amendment -- maybe they could just tax the **** out of the stuff and achieve the same effect.

[Flagstaffsooner]

Isnt it kinda important that its the 2nd amendment
the 2nd has been more scrutinized and criticised , than any other .
How Hard is it to understand ?
The " right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed "
Any one up for another Tea Party ? :confused:Let's board those damned-yankee ships tied up on St Louis docks and throw all the Natty into the Mississippi river.:D

[Jerk]

Well, putting aside the fact that I was talking about the government's wanting to take the guns of a specific individual (hypothetically olevet, in this case), if they decide they want to do this, they're not going to go whole hog all at once.

They'll go after the more "objectionable" firearms first, maybe not even technically make them illegal, maybe just make them de facto illegal by requiring a certain stamp but refusing to issue the stamps for certain classes of weaponry. Then they'll move it on down the line, in say, 20 year increments.

Besides -- and let's assume an amendment allowing the government wholesale regulation of firearm ownership here -- if they wanted to take away your guns, and they really wanted it to be effective, they'd probably just make private trade in and ownership of gunpowder illegal. You'll run out sooner or later, and well, if they think you've got a supply, for the vast majority of people, they could just walk a properly trained dog on the nearby sidewalk, and they'd have probable cause to search the place when the dog smelled the stuff.

Technically, they might not even need an amendment -- maybe they could just tax the **** out of the stuff and achieve the same effect.

That's why ammo is so expensive right now. Many people are stocking up. A stash of several thousand rounds doesn't even get the attention of a serious rat-packer. I know of a certain fellow here in OK who has 20,000 rounds of .308 brass :eek: Morever, ammo, if stored properly, can last a very long time. It will be a very costly endevour if the .gov ever decides to end private ownership of firearms.

A brick of .22LR containing 500 rounds is around 10 bucks at wal-mart. 22LR is one of those dinky little rounds that people laugh at, until someone gets hit in the head.

[the_ouskull]

Vagueness is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways.

Kinda like when a fat girl asks you if she looks fat?

(And yeah, I know it's redundant, 'cause thin girls never ask if they look fat unless they're fishing, at which point, I like to pause, stare 'em up and down for a sec, and say, "Well... Why do you ask?"

It's epic.)

the_ouskull