Skip to comments.
Federal Court Upholds D.C. Hand Gun Ban
wtop.com ^
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
TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; dc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-127 next last
To: KantianBurke
"BUSH nominated this joker?! Wait, was he the Rat judge Bush appointed as a peace offering to the Rats right after the 2000 election? If not, this is VERY disturbing."
Yes, I think he was.
To: chance33_98
"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.
Get this commie off the bench. I wonder what his opinion is regarding unarmed citizens and armed criminals.
To: Itzlzha; KantianBurke; Dead Corpse
So this ignorant P.O.S. is a GWB appointee? It's even worse than that. He was previously appointed to judicial positions by George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. A trifecta of bad decisions.
To: ought-six
His bio says he was appointed to an eariler bench by Reagan.
64
posted on
01/15/2004 9:45:15 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: BlackRazor
Beat me too it. 25 seconds. About typing time.
65
posted on
01/15/2004 9:46:05 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Dead Corpse
You're surprised? Why?
66
posted on
01/15/2004 9:46:34 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: Noumenon
"Sharp Shooting Man!" I love it!
67
posted on
01/15/2004 9:48:34 AM PST
by
Travis McGee
("That's not a line in the sand, that's a range marker." --Oleg Volk)
To: Dead Corpse
Bush to Conservatives: Pbbbbbbbbbbbt!
To: Itzlzha; Dead Corpse; KantianBurke
So this ignorant P.O.S. is a GWB appointee? Apparently so, with prior appointments by Reagan and Bush the Elder. Who'd a thunk it?
69
posted on
01/15/2004 10:00:44 AM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: B Knotts
I was secretly hoping that all those reassurances we have been slathered with here over the years about electing Republicans had some validity. Considering the alternative, it isn't hard to see why.
70
posted on
01/15/2004 10:00:47 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Pbbbbbbbbbbbt! Again? Jorge... grow up. It wasn't funny the first dozen times. It still isn't funny now.
71
posted on
01/15/2004 10:01:37 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Mr. Mojo
And surprise surprise .....the judge is a Bush appointee. That really did surprise me. I guess this is what we get from a compassionate, conservative, Christian President. </ sarcasm>
72
posted on
01/15/2004 10:03:18 AM PST
by
NRA2BFree
(PMS 24-7 own a gun. Specialize in RAT extermination. 1-800-KILLEM4U :-))
To: chance33_98; Everybody
"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."
____________________________________
Odd line.. Most gun grabbers support the 'state rights' view that states have a power to prohibit the bearing various types of arms..
Anyone got a link yet to the actual decision?
73
posted on
01/15/2004 10:04:30 AM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacher in me.)
To: chance33_98
Pinging for later read.
Gee, just imagine what would have happened if we'd not had GWBush in charge to appoint conservative judges!
....Waitaminute...
How are conservative republicans like black democrats? The keep pulling the lever even though they are ignored year after year.
74
posted on
01/15/2004 10:19:38 AM PST
by
zeugma
(The Great Experiment is over.)
To: chance33_98
Just part of the plan. The goal is to take RKBA to SCOTUS, which can only be done by working thru layers of appeals courts.
Didn't actually matter who won in this case...it was designed so that the loser MUST appeal; the pro-RKBA side expected a loss because it was the status quo to do so.
Just keep pushing such cases thru the judicial system until either SCOTUS accepts one and rules pro-RKBA, or SCOTUS rejects so many the point is made. (SCOTUS won't accept a case they would rule anti-RKBA on due to the obvious public response.) The question is how many SCOTUS-rejected RKBA cases it will take to add up to the equivalent of an unacceptable SCOTUS ruling.
To: gwsii
Ping... you gotta see this.
To: ctdonath2
Silveria V Lockyer was rejected. If I'm right, this was the NRA's idiot idea to challenge the DC gun ban by filing this lawsuit demanding the RIGHT to register their guns. Holding this up while stabbing the Silveria case in the back was not a smart maneuver by the NRA-ILA.
77
posted on
01/15/2004 10:49:35 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: chance33_98
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. Then the First Amendment doesn't apply to residents of the District either.
Like, say, the Washington Post. Yep, Big John Ashcroft can shut down their presses any time it's convenient and lock up anybody who complains...
To: blau993
I think that D.C. comes under the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; if so, what does the current makeup of that court look like? And what are the chances that honesty will prevail?
79
posted on
01/15/2004 11:38:37 AM PST
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: jonathanmo
"Things I learned in the article that I didn't know before" Washington D.C. is a state.
Go back and read the article again. It says very distinctly: the district is not a state
80
posted on
01/15/2004 11:43:46 AM PST
by
Elric@Melnibone
(Adventure is worthy in itself. - Amelia Earhart)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-127 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson