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
I'd also say the judge's logic is a little deficient:
"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."
How does the idiot suppose the vitality of the state militias can be insured if the citizenry is unarmed.
Not to mention that it's a stretch to think the words "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" refers to the right of any government agency to bear arms.
To believe such a thing is to believe that the Bill of Rights includes rights for the government, which presumably a leftist thinks it would need to protect itself from the citizens.
Walton is not an American in spirit.
Very interested. Thanks for the ping.
Linguistically, I've gotta agree with you. However, from a legislative standpoint, not to mention the political activism one, it is also moot. The gun-grabbers will cite this up and down as more evidence and the legislators will start dreaming up their next piece of onerous dreck.
Even his semantic slip aside, he refused to agree that "We the People" had a Right to property and no Right to to tools to protect ourselves. The ban stands and the hoplophobes trying to disarm us all have one more chunk of rock to throw at us.
Thanks to a Bush appointee.
FReegards
Not bad. I read that the Circuit Court for D.C. has interpreted The Bill of Rights to protect individual rights. I tried to make the link in this comment, but I can't. It's the third thread on the *bang_list about this decision.
He is also a Reagan appointee.
And on the other side is the Bill of Rights, also in black in white.
The train wreck is not far off.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't confer/create ANY individual rights, it protects those pre-existing rights against government infringement.
I've chastized people over the confer/create thing here many times (...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights). Good point.
However, in a Federal judge who is an attorney, who is supposed to be especially knowledgable in the law (or else be particularly able to look it up and understand it), whose very job is to ensure that the Constitution is protected, and who swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," this willful blindness is utterly unacceptable.
I think we should declare a "citizen's impeachment", since the Senate won't deal with oath-breakers like this.
I've noticed that there has been an accelerated rise in the number of felonious offenses for which one can be rousted, to say nothing of the "Lautenjerk Misdemeanor". This may be part of the plan, which also has the effect of "revenue enhancement".
Once again, great post, and thanks for taking the time to write it up. :-)
Not that I approve of the way Roe V Wade was handled in the courts.
I discontinued my membership to the NRA several years because of their propensity to negotiate and legislate State and Federal "gun privleges" as opposed to litigation on hard core consitutional principles.
Some of the battles they've "won" only serve to enhance the Govt's perceived validity to create unconstitutional laws in the first place.
Sui
I just read that on thehighroad.org also.
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.