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
"And if could not be shown to be a common part?"
Absent more unchallenged lies on the part of the persecutor, there is no possible WAY it could not have been EASILY shown. Experience from the Great War (WWI) in the trenches, where sawed-off shotguns were pretty prevalent, would have easily shown the military untility of Miller's weapon. Hell's fire, they were very big in WWII in the Pacific and we used them in Vietnam, as well. I even saw one guy carrying a sawed-off M-14 rifle. A sawed off 12ga. is absolutely the ideal weapon for close-in work, bar none. It becomes useless after more than 15 yards or so, because the shot spreads too much, but under that range, you are virtually guaranteed a rather messy kill.
Anything is "useful" to a militia. But the question was whether Miller's weapon was one that would be used by average Militia member to take into combat and be effective.
I don't think his weapon would have qualified. In my opinion. We'll never know.
I changed nothing. Justice Washington simply defined P&I and stated Article IV encompassed it.
Q: Do such privileges and immunities include those recognized in the Bill of Rights?
Bits and pieces.
So the Courts have said. Do you believe the phrase "Privileges and Immunities", as it applies to the national government, should include all of the BOR?
"The Supremacy Clause doesn't mean everything in the contract applies to the states. Otherwise the states could coin money and set up Post Offices."
bobby, learn to read with comprehension. Article I, sec 8,
"The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...To establish Post Offices and post Roads..."
then we have:
Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And since the power to coin money and to establish post offices IS, in fact, delegated to the (Congress of the) United States, I guess that shoots you right down, doesn't it?
Then we have:
Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Now can you point out where the Constitution says otherwise, since we have here its relevant words?
"We'll never know"??????????????
You mean you'll never know.
The term "shall NOT be ingringed" pretty much covers whatever one can use to accomplish what one needs.
You haven't answered where the state militia's are.
Where are they?
Sure, if he were my expert witness.
I'm not equivocating, I'm educating.
Again, you are incorrect, there is very little difference in the pattern. The pattern is almost entirely a function of the choke. Now it's true that if you cut off the barrel of a full or modified choke 20" barrel (not that a 20" barrel is likely to have anything but a cylinder choke, that is no choke at all) and don't install a choke tube, you will get a wider pattern, since you will have changed chokes. But most 20" shotguns, and my 18.5" one, already have cylinder chokes.
IIRC, correctly about the shortest choked barrel I've seen was a 21" Remington 870 Upland Game model, but even for upland game, or skeet, most folks like a 24 or 26 inch barrel. When I hunted with the fellow who owned it, another hunter in the group asked him if he was going to shoot pheasants with it, or rob a bank with it. :)
Mine is 24", and my father in law, who had an otherwise identical Browning, was jealous, and wanted to trade barrels, even though his is only 2" longer. :) Both of them have screw in choke tubes, so they can have most any choke we want. I have tubes for Full, Modified and Improved Cylinder. IC is still some restriction.
The real advantage to a short shotgun is that is more handy. You can more easily use it in confined spaces, such as inside or coming out of a vehicle, or in your hallway.
Don't let paulsen try to change the focus.
What a state can and cannot use to equip it's forces is not the issue.
What private citizens can or cannot own is the issue as guaranteed by the 2d amendment to not be infringed by any laws.
I just don't have the time to answer your question. I thought you understood that.
You mean you can't answer because you have no answer.
Where are these so called state militia's?????????????
If you can't back up what you say then you should stop saying them.
No you don't have time to remember the nonsense you post, that is the problem.
Of course not. And neither did the Founders. They never would have stood for it.
Go pick on your buddy -- he thinks Article VI applies the BOR to the states. Go convince him that Article IV applies the BOR to the states.
The blind leading the blind.
Nope. Article VI says the constitution is the law of the land, meaning it's the law of the states also. Correct?
Which means the states can print money. It's right there in the constitution. You even pointed it out. If it's in the constitution, it applies to the states because of the supremacy clause.
Here's proof. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law ...(just like is says Congress has the power to coin money). Yet the first amendment applies to the states, doesn't it? Same thing with printing money. Article VI says so.
WOW!!!!!!!
You are out there.
Hillarious the stuff you come with.
Who's "my"? The prosecutor? The defense atorney? The defendant?
And that testimony would then apply to the militia of all 48 states?
I think the phrase that applies to you is; "stuck on stupid".
Years ago I sawed off a beat up old Sears boxlock dbl to 26" and patterned it at 40 yds with #4 buck.. Almost all pellets were within a 5' circle.
I then cut it down to 22", and it put nearly all of its 21 pellets in an approx 6' circle.
Finally, cut down to a bit over 18" the gun still put [consistently] 90% of its 21 pellet #4 buck load into a 72" circle at 40 yards.
-- A standing man at the center of that circle would get hit by at least 4 to 6 .24 caliber pellets, still moving at 800FPS or so..
Never sell buckshot 'short', -- it's still lethal at 40 yards.
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.