[apillar]

"It's a big victory for those who overwhelmingly believe that we need fewer guns on our streets, not more,"

No it's the opinion of one judge, this was always meant to be a test case and was going to be appealed by one side or the other no matter what the result.

[an amused spectator]

"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.

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.

[an amused spectator]

Man! This is one of Dubya's messes!

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.

[KantianBurke]

who appointed this jackass?

[Puppage]

the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

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?

[LTCJ]

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

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."

[M Kehoe]

I wonder why the ACLU doesn't file an amecus brief...No I don't. Just kidding. The ACLU's Bill of Rights doesn't have a second amendment listed. Goes right from one to three.

"...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

[Mulder]

The assault against the Bill of Rights continues.

[goldstategop]

Reggie B. Walton bought into the gun banners' twisted reading of the Second Amendment. D.C retains its dubious status as the crime capital of America thanks to this nonsensical reading of the Constitution by a liberal federal judge. Then again I bet Walton has private security so who cares if average Washingtonians have to put up with being mugged, raped and murdered in their little gun-free paradise. It confirms what we've known for awhile: our jurists regard the Constitution as a piece of paper to wipe one's nether regions with. For D.C, the verdict's in: 2nd Amendment, RIP.

[MileHi]

"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.

What a pantload.

[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...

[bc2]

so what now?

[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.

[upcountryhorseman]

I hope they are going to appeal this !

[ought-six]

Sic semper tyrannis!

[Centurion2000]

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

And this dumba$$ passed the bar exam ?

[Constitutional Patriot]

"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.

[tpaine]

"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?

[zeugma]

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.