GUN Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by t1h, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. t1h

    t1h Guest

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azTOCL.ZiDGM&refer=us

    Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban (Update1)

    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.

    It's the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is ``very likely.''

    ``This is clearly an extremely significant ruling,'' Lund said. ``The District of Columbia had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.'' The appeals court said it didn't consider whether the district can bar people from carrying handguns in public or in cars.

    The Second Amendment says, ``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.''

    Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia.

    `Bear Arms'

    The appeals court rejected that argument in today's 2-1 ruling.

    ``There are too many instances of `bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense,'' Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for himself and Judge Thomas Griffith. Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the District of Columbia isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.

    Most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment preserves state militias and doesn't protect individual rights.

    The exception is the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit, which said in non-binding language in 2001 that individuals have Second Amendment rights. Nonetheless, the 5th Circuit said the defendant in that case was properly convicted of possessing a gun in violation of a restraining order.

    The Bush administration, in papers filed at the Supreme Court in 2002, agreed that the defendant in the 5th Circuit case was properly convicted. The government also argued, though, that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, reversing a decades-old Justice Department position that the provision was designed to let states sponsor militias. The Supreme Court didn't hear the 5th Circuit case.

    Rifle Association

    The National Rifle Association, which campaigns against gun control laws across the U.S., hailed the ruling.

    ``We think the court made the right decision,'' said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. ``We've always thought and maintained that the residents of the District of Columbia are just as equal as residents elsewhere and ought to enjoy Second Amendment freedoms.''

    Dena Iverson, a spokeswoman for Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

    The case is Parker v. D.C., 04-7041, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).

    :bowdown:
     
  2. Gimik

    Gimik New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    36,559
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Feenicks, Az
    Holy Crap!!!! :eek3::eek3::eek3:
     
  3. spankaveli

    spankaveli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,466
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    LA. State, not City.
    Fucking awesome
     
  4. Gimik

    Gimik New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    36,559
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Feenicks, Az
    I love how they reinstate the 2nd ammendment right before we have a federal assault weapons ban :wtc:
     
  5. spankaveli

    spankaveli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,466
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    LA. State, not City.
    Maybe that will be a good thing. :dunno:
     
  6. Keesh

    Keesh New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fuck yes! Hopefully over the next few years this will add more evidence that more guns = less crime...especially in DC.
     
  7. Soybomb

    Soybomb New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    9,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    It'll be really interesting to see if the SC hears this case...I'd be inclined to say no of course.

    Of course, why would any of the core values of our nation apply to those living in its capitol.
     
  8. [DWI]

    [DWI] Master of Nothing

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    21,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maine

    :dunno: maybe, managing to overturn a handgun ban might give the AWB second toughts or set a pesendent to overturn the AWB
     
  9. phoenixTX

    phoenixTX New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas and OKC
    This is freakin' awesome!
     
  10. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    This is actually very huge. The SC has purposely avoided ruling but because this is the first time that the case coming up is a pro 2nd ruling, if they avoid it again, the appeals ruling stands.
     
  11. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
  12. copperhead035

    copperhead035 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    I would assume that what that Judge intended was that in order to have a state militia, you have to be a state. Without having a state militia, the 2nd doesn't apply. At least, that what I think they believe. I certainly don't agree with that though, as far as I am concerned, where the Second Amendment says, ``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'' I believe that it is conveying two different thoughts. One being "A well regulated militia" and the other being "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." Is it possible to interpret that differently? Should we take that to an English professor and see what the meaning is?
     
  13. idleprocess

    idleprocess Bring a dollar with you baby in the cold cold grou

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    "world-class" to the brim Dallas
    I found it ironic that this was going on while HR 1022 is slowly gathering momentum.
     
  14. Crossett

    Crossett New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    13,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In my mind
    people keeping and bearing arms is necessary to raise a militia. They go hand in hand.
     
  15. fatmoocow

    fatmoocow bored OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,329
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    the intarweb
    Actually the term militia at the time of the writing of the consititution was somewhat different than today's use of the word. It really ment civilians rather than an organized army.
     
  16. spankaveli

    spankaveli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    16,466
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    LA. State, not City.
    I wish the people that say that only (todays use of the term) militias are protected by 2A would understand that.
     
  17. Alphaeus

    Alphaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    I kinda hope it will go to the supreme court now before the dems get to put on another liberal member. Although I don't even really know where the conservative justices stand on that issue.
     
  18. SnakeEater

    SnakeEater OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Burma
    The A.G. of MI was there helping the cause aswell.
     
  19. jeepilot

    jeepilot Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KCMO
    well i've been out of country the past week. Is the new AWB gaining enough momentum to pose an actual threat and when are they supposed to vote on it?

    I think it's a good thing that this is being overturned, and in general the past few years have proven to be very gun-friendly. I just hope the AWB doesn't pass.
     

Share This Page