[ctdonath2]

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.

[RandomUserName]

Ping... you gotta see this.

[Interesting Times]

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...

[Elric@Melnibone]

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.

"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.

Which is why we need to start pushing gun rights under the 9th (unenumerated rights) amendment, as well.

We have a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A right to life is worthless without a concommittant right to selfdefense (despite what Taxachusettes says). And the right of selfdefense is worthless without arms for that defense.

Historically, the 2nd amendment may have been for protection against a tyrannical government. But RKBA doesn't depend on that argument.

Of course, this is all to simple for a lowly judge to understand.

[FSPress]

I thought Bush was supposed to be the one to appoint all of those "conservative" judges to the courts. If this ruling is the result of the type of people he appoint what the hell is he doing.

[ServesURight]

These judges need to be impeached ASAP.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

As I posted on a companion thread to this one.

Those people who live in the D.C. area who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment should arm themselves and march on the courthouse. They should demand that their rights be recognized or that the police come and try to disarm them.

The entire load of gun control malarkey could be ended in one day if there was an organized effort to recover our rights from the tyrants who have stolen them. The Constitution isn't negotiable unless we are willing to negotiate from a position of weakness.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Full text of the opinion available (pdf format) here.

[Mat_Helm]

NUTS !

[Dan from Michigan]

The hell with the judge. That law isn't worthy of being followed.

[Blood of Tyrants]

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

And just what is to protect the citizens when both the state and federal governments become oppressive?

This judge is an effing moron. To rule that the Constitution doesn't apply to DC because it isn't a state is idiotic. He had to reach waaaayyyy up his @$$ to come up with this one.