Posted on 03/10/2007 12:31:16 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Interpreting the Second Amendment broadly, a federal appeals court in Washington yesterday struck down a gun control law in the District of Columbia that bars residents from keeping handguns in their homes.
The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias. Nine other federal appeals courts around the nation have rejected that interpretation.
Linda Singer, the District’s acting attorney general, said the decision was “a huge setback.”
“We’ve been making progress on bringing down crime and gun violence,” Ms. Singer said, “and this sends us in a different direction.”
By contrast, advocates of gun rights praised the decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, saying it raised the prospect of a national re-evaluation of the meaning of the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners. They said the District of Columbia would have to begin procedures to allow handgun possession in private homes unless yesterday’s decision was stayed.
Lawyers on both sides of the case said it had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely. The Supreme Court last considered the issue in 1939, and there are only scattered hints about how the current justices might rule.
The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Begin procedures? Letting people the hell alone requires a Government procedure?
What a bizzare statement.
L
WoooHoooo!
Will this Court eventually rule on the Libby Case?
They said the District of Columbia would have to begin procedures to allow handgun possession in private homes unless yesterday’s decision was stayed.
Well, it is a start.
Mr. Liptak probably doesn't take a leak without proper authorization.
Holy Shazaam Batman!
>>Will this Court eventually rule on the Libby Case?
Now there's an interesting question.
Wasn't Bernard Ginsberg the guy on the NY subway who shot down four thugs about twenty years ago? I believe he got away with it all, in NY no less.
And one could hardly say he 'got away' with anything.
He was prosecuted for illegally using and carrying a handgun and then lost a massive civil suit brought against him by one of the thugs who tried to rob him.
L
Right. Our Nation's Capitol is like Sadr City night after night and they're "making progress".
The only solution is to restore the rights of the (few) honest residents of DC to arm themselves...and to throw out the hacks that "lead" DC. Any of you that live in this area know just how miserable DC has become: rampant crime, trash in the streets, ridiculous parking laws/traffic patterns, eternal potholes, and panhandlers on every corner.
No surprise that even the churches have thick bars on their windows. Yet Mayor Fenty is focused on depriving people of their rights.. Shameful.
I heard this reported on Fox last night. No mention of the gun crime statistics in DC under "gun control," which I thought was weird. Doesn't DC have one of the highest crime rates -- including gun crimes -- in the country?
What a bizzare statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have throwback disease, you expect people to make sense, that attitude is about fifty years out of date.
Sorry. My mistake.
L
The bill of rights is the rights of the people as individuals. It is not a group thing. Read every item one by one. You will see that it cannot be divided into groups such as a militia, a particular religion, a particular newspaper.
Yah right and next you'll be tellin me that freedom of speach means freedom of speach for individuals and that it doesn't simply mean the government is free to say whatever it wants too..................
;-)
I think that refers to DC lawmakers pulling their heads out of their backsides.
Doesn't DC have one of the highest crime rates -- including gun crimes -- in the country?
But, but they are illegal guns!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.