Federal Court Upholds D.C. Hand Gun Ban

wtop.com ^

[wysiwyg]

This Judge is IGNORANT!!!!!!

No, he just has an agenda of disarmament.

[Dead Corpse]

Damn, I predicted this one. Back on one of those threads where the NRA supporters were calling some of us nuts for thinking this case was a loser.

How many of you are finally getting it through your thickened skulls that the system is BROKEN. You will fix nothing with these endless legal battles. The state, be it a State or the FedGov, will never GIVE you back your Right to Keep and Bear Arms as it was intended. Instead, they will give you CCW laws and registration schemes that severally limit your "Right".

Power, once given up must be TAKEN back. Vote them out. Impeach them. Drive them out of town on a rail. Tar and feathers need to come back in vogue. In the more extreme cases, calling up the local militia may in fact be necessary.

For 70+ years we've had to endure this crap. This outright denigration of our basic human RIGHT to not only property, but the Right to preserve our life by the most efficacious means, ie; firearms.

[Blue Collar Christian]

And the beat goes on...

[GigaDittos]

Sorry, but the National Guard does not qualify as a militia. It is a standing army, that receives payment for its services. A militia by definition is a group of the citizenry, the people. They are not Government employees in any way.

[COEXERJ145]

Sometimes I wish pro-2nd Amendment groups would hold off on law suits. Given the current insanity on the Supreme Court, do we really want them taking any of these cases right now?

[Jim Cane]

You miss the point. The pissant DC law is unimportant. What is important is that we have a District Judge who has endorsed the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the appeal of that decision will go up to one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country. Right now you have two circuit court decisons interpreting the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit has endorsed the individualist view. The Ninth Circus has endorsed the collectivist view. Having the DC Circuit weigh in on the issue could tip the scales in the eyes of other circuits and/or in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

Yes, this step back is a step onto a springboard.

[an amused spectator]

Sorry, but the "state militia" is NOT the National Guard.

I have the phrase "state militia" in quotes because that's how His Royal Highness Reggie B. Walton (L-FJESL) would respond to both your arguments about the National Guard. I would bet a double sawbuck that Reggie the Ninny would actually tell you to your face that the "state militia" is the National Guard, and actually believe it.

It doesn't matter what we think about these issues on FR, even though we are correct. What matters is what the 800-odd members of the Federal Judicial Executive SuperLegislature think.

[Dead Corpse]

Given the current insanity on the Supreme Court, do we really want them taking any of these cases right now?

I would argue... yes. No government, once it has siezed a power, has ever given up that power without some drastic measures being taken. The Founders warned us of this. The last 70 years, from the Miller decision to the Brady Bill, has seen nothing but the incremental destruction or our Right. The only way to wake enough people up is a quick smack to the back of the head.

The wrong ruling from the Supremes could be just the "smack" we need.

[Dead Corpse]

Someone should send him a copy of the Militia Act. I hate it when judges don't seem to be able to follow the LAW.

Impeach this arsehole. Or at least take him out back and give him an attitude adjustment.

[bc2]

so what now?

[Travis McGee]

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.

There it is, in black and white.

[Dead Corpse]

Now we have two lower courts advocating the collective Right theory, and another espousing an individual Right along with the US Attourney General.

Is anyone optomistic about the USSC hearing this one and deciding in our favor? And I just don't mean the current make-up of the Bench. I mean AT ALL?

[Gritty]

As Congressman Billybob would say, we had better hope this case doesn't get to our present Supreme Court, because it is completely out of control. They would probably agree, 5-4.

[Travis McGee]

I'm sure not optimistic. Sounds more like my book every day.

[Durus]

It doesn't matter which way the USSC would rule ultimately.

If they ruled for the actually meaning of the second amendment then you would have a bunch of Dems for State rights but no laws would go anywhere.

If they ruled against it would just make clear where they stand...not that most of don't know already.

Eventually the USSC will try a case and it will be interesting.

[upcountryhorseman]

I hope they are going to appeal this !

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed. I'm optimistic that "We the People" can prevail... but not with the means we've been trying to use. The legal system is broken and our legislators are now more concerned with re-election and power than our Constitution.

Soap Box. Ballot Box. Jury Box. All failures. Only one box left... it worked with the King and is our last hope for a restoration of our Freedoms.

[neverdem]

You'll be disappointed to read his bio here:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/walton-bio.html

[Ranxerox]

I wonder if using that section of the US Code about "..denial of rights under the color of authority..." on a judge like this would force the debate of wether or not the 2nd is an individual right?

[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.