Posted on 01/15/2004 5:26:10 AM PST by chance33_98
Federal Court Upholds D.C. Hand Gun Ban
By MARTY NILAND Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.
"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.
He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.
He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.
A gun control advocate welcomed the ruling.
"It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more," said Matt Nosanchuk, a spokesman for the Violence Policy Center.
Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said the group's lawyers had not seen the ruling on Wednesday night but noted that other courts have taken the opposite opinion.
___
On the Net:
National Rifle Association: http://www.nra.org
Violence Policy Center: http://www.vpc.org
He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.
Right. The "state militia", which is the National Guard, becomes a part of the army of the potentially oppressive federal government with a single order.
The weapons of the "state militia" are also the property of the potentially oppressive federal government.
Well, it's always been my saying that the majority of federal judges have already decided to take the guns away. Like the legal types who stole the land from the American Indians, they're just waiting for the right time to tell us peasants that they're collecting them all.
The DC Circuit, however, is a whole other ball game. It has a number (perhaps even a majority -- I haven't done the count lately) of good conservative judges. This decision will surely be appealed, and the next big event will be the assignment of the three-judge panel who will hear this appeal in the DC Circuit.
The NRA would do well to partner at this level with some good conservative Washington lawyers who know this Court and are experienced at positioning an issue for the best result. I would like to see some of the good people from the Federalist Society get involved.
This is an important case that can still come out the right way if it is handled intelligently. With all due respect to some of my fellow FReepers who are highly passionate about Second Amendment issues, this is the time for serious lawyering, not partisan cheering. A reversal by the DC Circuit of a decision taking a collectivist view of the Second Amendment would be a huge win for the RTKBA side.
The definition of militia has changed since the Bill of Rights was written. The militia is made up of ordinary citizens who carried their OWN guns. That's what town greens were originally used for....for them to drill.
By this jokers interpretation, the 2nd Amendment has the state giving the state a right to keep & bear arms. That's ridiculous. I suppose the 1st ammendment allows the state to speak freely about the state, too?
Not necessarily so important. While the masses will believe the propaganda; the truth is DC is NOT a state. Congress has PLENARY power over DC as enumerated by the US Constitution. Rights in DC are only those conferred by US Congress.
NRA never should have supported a case there as this makes for very negative press.
Sui
Not necessarily so important. While the masses will believe the propaganda; the truth is DC is NOT a state. Congress has PLENARY power over DC as enumerated by the US Constitution. Rights in DC are only those conferred by US Congress.
NRA never should have supported a case there as this makes for very negative press.
Sui
If this were a good day, the next sentence would have read something like, "At which point, a freeman exercised the Amendment up one side of his oppressive carcass and down the other."
"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." Maybe English is a second language for the DC court.
5.56mm
This Judge is IGNORANT!!!!!!
So tell me judge if the Bill of rights was ratified on 12-15-1791 and the Militia was formed AFTER that In May of 1792(the Militia Act) how could it be construed that the 2nd was to apply to State Militia?
That is why this case is important.
Sorry, but the "state militia" is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is a part of the "organized militia" that is stationed in the states and which the Federal Government allows the state governments to exercise some usage of.
There are several states (I forget which ones) that currently maintain a state militia in addition to and apart from the National Guard. That other states currently do NOT maintain such does NOT abrogate their right to organize such at any time they so choose.
Correct you are, and that argument itself MIGHT be grounds for overturning the handgun ban, which was passed by the "Washington DC city council", and NOT, I believe, by the Congress of the United States. One could argue that only Congress has the power/authority to implement such a ban.
What a pantload.
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.