Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.
Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."
My coverage of the D.C. Circuit's oral argument appeared here on the afternoon of December 7, 2006. Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman
Are you thinking of the state funded public library down on Third Street (State National Guard), or the private library I have on the shelves behind me (A citizen's safe full of guns)?
Would have. They were extensively used in WWI. Commonly known as 'trench guns'.
Those had 20" barrels, a bayonet lug, sling swivels and a barrel shroud.
I doubt Mr. Miller's gun had any of those.
And if they don't (as is the case, practically speaking), their negligence does NOT diminish the individual's right to keep and bear arms. This was plainly addressed in the DC Circuit's verdict, which obviously you still haven't read (and many people on this thread, who have, wish you would stop spouting off until you do).
Just to be nitpicky: it is legal to own, you just have to file some paperwork and pay a $200 tax. Where do I get one?
The National Guard has been deemed a "select militia" by SCOTUS - not to be confused with the general (or "unorganized" as noted by the DC Circuit's verdict which you obviously haven't read, because they clearly addressed this) militia.
There certainly is a place for the gov't to provide arms to the select militia and standing army - reasons including commonality, assurance and affordability. There is also a place for militia members outside those groups to provide their own weapons, making sure those called up can show up armed and ready immediately, as the gov't is not necessarily able to equip large numbers under difficult conditions immediately (heck, they're having trouble keeping up with weapons needs in Iraq for the select militia; if you're called up, you may need to bring your own).
If you can't articulate an answer to a reasonable and relevant question, we must assume you don't have one - especially as you spend time & effort insulting people instead.
Damn! All along I've been quoting from the 9th Circuit's 80-page opinion in Silveira v Lockyer! No wonder!
So you're saying the DC Circuit's verdict negates and replaces all previous second amendment verdicts and, like good little Nazis, we should all be quoting from it?
"Mommy! robertpaulsen's not playing fair! We're all circle-jerking about this most recent opinion and he keeps throwing cold water on us with his constant citing of the facts! Make him stop, Mommy!"
Numbnuts said that without arms there was no way for civilians to participate in militia duty. I pointed out that the National Guard manages to do it -- Guardsmen don't take their weapons home.
That's the only reason I brought up the Guard. I wasn't trying to make any other comparison to a Militia.
Ease up. Here I am trying to get past the first page of the verdict and you keep interrupting me.
Mind your own business -- God, you're nosy!
They're functionally equivalent to what Miller was in trouble for having, and which SCOTUS ostensibly couldn't see an obvious military use for.
I'd go so far as to say: in observing that the defense didn't show up to court, and recognizing the serious relevance of the case, SCOTUS was looking for a way to make the case go away without making a binding ruling - as to do so would be unfair to both sides. Better to a relevant yet easily-answered question which sends the case back thru the system, allowing Miller to pursue his case (if he ever showed up (difficult, being dead)). It's not unusual for courts to seek any way to weasel out of making a ruling (even in Parker, only one plaintiff was granted a full ruling).
You've posted an awful lot about this verdict for not having gotten past the first page of the verdict.
Mind my own business? I have just as much interest in this thread as you do. He asked a relevant question, and others are interested in your answer - which wasn't.
No. They have been declared suitable for military use. So has the M79 and the M249 SAW. That's what's relevant.
For you to say shotgun "A" is allowed therefore shotgun "B" should be allowed is ludicrous. If the U.S. Army thought there was merit to a 17" shotgun they would have told Colt to build one. They didn't. They told Colt to build it 20".
(but ... but ... what about 19.8" robertpaulsen?)
Gosh. Maybe I did read it after all.
Couldn't have. You said I didn't.
Then I suggest the "others" get on HIS case (not mine) to answer the question posed to him.
It's a right of the people and it shall not be infringed. By anyone.
The only way to "remove" someones access to their Rights is via incarceration for crimes that person may have committed. Simply making possession or carrying of arms a criminal offense via legislation "offends" the Seconds Constitutional protection.
Federal law. State law. Local ordnance. Home owners association. School board. Not a single one has "authority" to infringe an individuals RKBA.
Past due time to remind them all of this...
Depends. Some DD's are listed under the NFA of '34 and as such had to be registered pre-84. Unless you are a government agency, newer Class III toys and some DD's are strictly off limits. The Master Key and the AA-12 are both NFA DD's.
Well, any part of the Bill of Rights that speaks of "Congress shall make no law" clearly is not refering to the States. After all, some States had various established religions in place for many years after 1789. Fortunately for this argument, the 2nd Amendment is not phrased that way.
More convincingly, the 10th Amendment would seem to make clear that regulating the ownership of arms, being protected by the 2nd Amendment, is therefore both (1) not a power delegated to the United States, and (2) is a power prohibited by the 2nd Amendment to the States.
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.