Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; devilhasiceskates; districtofcolumbia; firsttimeruling; flyingpigs; frogshavewings; giuliani; gunlaws; hellfreezesover; individualright; rkba; secondamendment; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,238 last
To: robertpaulsen
as far as we know, he wasn't even a militia member

He was under age 18, or over age 45? Or did he perhaps undergo an early experimental sex-change operation?

1,201 posted on 03/14/2007 11:10:47 AM PDT by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Whatever he says means that the way it is? Golly gosh, I wonder if he'll say his weapon was a militia-type weapon? Gee, what do you think?

Let's try this again:

Presumably, the expert witnesses will have different takes on various points, in which case it falls to the court to decide who is more credible.
Admittedly, the repetition may not do you any good -- I don't think that Babelfish has a filter for converting from English to the language spoken on your home planet.
1,202 posted on 03/14/2007 11:13:26 AM PDT by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"I said it encompassed the "rights recognized in the BOR".

OK.

Article IV, Section 2 was written and ratified before the BOR was even added to the constitution. How could Article IV, Section 2 encompass the rights recognized in the BOR when the BOR didn't even exist?

1,203 posted on 03/14/2007 11:22:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1200 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"How can that be if privileges and immunities do not encompass rights?"

I said nothing about rights. I was talking about privileges and immunities. Did you miss that? Did you not understand that?

Article IV, Section 2 deals with privileges and immunities, not rights. I said when it comes to Article IV privileges and immunities, a state cannot treat a citizen of another state differently than their own.

1,204 posted on 03/14/2007 11:32:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1200 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Article IV, Section 2 deals with privileges and immunities, not rights. I said when it comes to Article IV privileges and immunities, a state cannot treat a citizen of another state differently than their own.

So what was in the Constitution in 1787 to stop a state from denying fundamental rights to a citizen of another state, if not Article IV?

1,205 posted on 03/14/2007 12:26:08 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1204 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

The relevance is that we're here, now, today - not 70 years ago.
The relevance is that the usability of some things is not readily apparant at a given time - short barrels are nothing new and haven't been for 70 years, yet only recently was the "it's for criminals" mindset overcome and such items brought into common militia use.
The relevance is that you're stuck arguing standards from 60, 70, 150, 200 or more years ago, while the rest of us have moved into the 21st Century, and have the latest Parker verdict to support our RKBA.


1,206 posted on 03/14/2007 12:28:36 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1197 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
It's more than just a verdict form some random panel of judges. For me, it was the logic and historical accuracy of the arguments used by the majority justices in the Parker decision. Their findings FINALLY line up with Founding Intent and the express language in the Constitution and supporting documents.

Rights are Rights. It's not a "Right" if you have to ask permission. Why this is so hard to understand for some folks can only be explained by ignorance, or arrogance. Either ignorance that you have such a Right, or the arrogance to tell another person that they have no Rights.

1,207 posted on 03/14/2007 12:44:42 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1206 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I salute you for your persistence, but, really, in this case it's like trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon

It wasn't Robert that I was educating, that would be a lost cause.

1,208 posted on 03/14/2007 1:02:57 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1171 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
How could Article IV, Section 2 encompass the rights recognized in the BOR when the BOR didn't even exist?

Because fundamental rights - many of which were recognized in the BOR - existed long before the BOR.

1,209 posted on 03/14/2007 1:11:51 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"So what was in the Constitution in 1787 to stop a state from denying fundamental rights to a citizen of another state, if not Article IV?"

By "denying fundamental rights" of course you mean, "denying the protection of fundamental rights". In 1787, there was nothing to stop a state from denying the protection of fundamental rights to their OWN citizens (much less citizens of another state) except the state constitution.

1,210 posted on 03/14/2007 1:14:42 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Because fundamental rights - many of which were recognized in the BOR - existed long before the BOR."

Those are rights. Why in the world would you think Article IV, Section 2 -- which only mentions privileges and immunities of Citizens of the states -- would encompass ANY rights?

1,211 posted on 03/14/2007 1:24:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1209 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In 1787, there was nothing to stop a state from denying the protection of fundamental rights to their OWN citizens (much less citizens of another state) except the state constitution.

If you exclude fundamental rights from "privileges and immunities", then what required states to protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens?

1,212 posted on 03/14/2007 1:49:15 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why in the world would you think Article IV, Section 2 -- which only mentions privileges and immunities of Citizens of the states -- would encompass ANY rights?

1. The 1825 Corfield decision for one:

"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign."

2. Douglass, 1821:

"...the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights, and all the methods of protecting those rights, which belong to a person in a state of civil society,"

1,213 posted on 03/14/2007 2:10:35 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1211 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"then what required states to protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens?"

In 1787, did the states protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens? If they did, I assume it was under their state constitution.

1,214 posted on 03/14/2007 2:30:30 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1212 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Corfield says nothing about rights.

Douglass said, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a person in a state of civil society". (He didn't say, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a Citizen of a state.) I listed a whole bunch of those belonging to a person in a state of civil society in an earlier post.

1,215 posted on 03/14/2007 2:46:59 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In 1787, did the states protect the fundamental rights of citizens of other states that it recognized for its own citizens? If they did, I assume it was under their state constitution.

But in your view of privileges and immunities, they were not required to do so. Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?

1,216 posted on 03/14/2007 3:18:47 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1214 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
The basic argument being made is that society can decide which rights will be protected --- If a majority of people decide that we should prohibit arms, then it can be done. -- In this bizarre 'constitutional' view, there is nothing to stop a majority from banning any thing or any act.
1,217 posted on 03/14/2007 3:47:35 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1216 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Does it not seem absurd that the Constitution would require a state to entitle the citizens of other states to its privileges and immunities, but not its fundamental rights?"

Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects and the laws it enforces?

Or does that make you uncomfortable?

Would you like just one set of rights and one set of rules for all 50 states? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do that, then we'll have five justices interpret those rights for all of us, AND they'll also rule on the constitutionality of the laws that we all must obey!

And if we don't like it we can always move to another .... no, can't do that.

1,218 posted on 03/14/2007 4:01:35 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1216 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Corfield says nothing about rights.

Bull. Justice Washington, Corfield:

Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety;

-snip-

These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities,"

Douglass said, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a person in a state of civil society". (He didn't say, "the words "privileges and immunities" comprehend all the rights ... which belong to a Citizen of a state.)

So? He was defining P&I, not saying how they applied to Article IV or the States.

I listed a whole bunch of those belonging to a person in a state of civil society in an earlier post.

Like the right to travel, and the right to commerce. So you do agree that P&I does include at least some fundamental rights. What evidence do you have that the Founders thought the terms "privileges" and "immunities" did not comprehend fundamental rights?

1,219 posted on 03/14/2007 4:29:16 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1215 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Bull. Justice Washington, Corfield:"

Are you playing games here? There was no mention of rights in your post #1213 -- that's the one you asked me to comment on.

Now you bring up something else. Screw you. I'm outta here. I'm tired of putting up with your bull$hit and your gotcha games.

1,220 posted on 03/14/2007 4:35:28 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1219 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The Slaughterhouse Cases where the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" were defined. I already posted that to you.

Actually they were defined in Dred Scott, which the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment was designed to overturn, and which was about 20 years prior to The Slaughterhouse Cases

This is how Dred Scott defined them:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

The Slaughterhouse Justices just decided to ignore that previous Supreme Court definition, which was the one used by both framers and opponents of the 14th amendment. The main reason those who opposed the 14th did so because it would override state laws denying those "Privileges and Immunities".

1,221 posted on 03/14/2007 4:41:57 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1181 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If, in the Civil war or the Indian wars some guy went into the barn, dusted off an old shotgun with a short barrel and used it, that doesn't mean the weapon bears a reasonable relationship to a militia. Give that argument a rest already.

So you get to decide which weapons used by either the US military or Organized state militias and National Guard units counts as being able to "contribute.." and/or is part of the ordinary military equipment.

The Model 97? 18". Doesn't count. Forget about it. The Model 1897 (which was the one used by the military in WWI)? 20". Doesn't count

Fine, but you are wrong and I posted evidence from multiple sources, that you are wrong about the length of the barrel of the M97, the one used in WW-I, (which was the Military designation), although it was still not "under 18 inches". Winchester Model 1897s came in various barrel lenghts, just as most shotguns do today.

And what is so magic about 18 inches, except that it's the magic value the authors of the National Firearms Act chose, just like the "magic" or "evil" features that were chosen by the authoress of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. Didn't mean squat, it was arbitrary and capricious, as well as being a violation of the second amendment, even if as you assert, that the amendment only applies to the Federal government.

1,222 posted on 03/14/2007 4:50:54 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1182 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
The Supreme Court went astray in its specific finding of fact because the defendant failed to present the evidence that would have supported the conclusion that a sawed-off shotgun is indeed an "arm" of militia utility

Because the judge in the case implicitly took "judicial notice" that it was an arm, and thus no evidence was needed nor requested. Miller's lawyer just moved for dismissal on grounds that the law was not a law at all, since it violated the second amendment (and that the Government failed to provide any evidence that the 12 guage double barrel had ever been transferred without paying the tax, or at all). The judge said in effect, "Bang!" "Case dismissed".

What the lawyer, Paul E. Gutensohn, actually wrote was:

That the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed;" that the said "National Firearms Act" is in violation and contrary to said Second Amendment and particularly as charging a crime against these said defendants, is unconstitutional and therefore does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States.

4. That the indictment herein charges the violation of Section 1132 (c) and Section 1132 (j) in which it is made unlawful to transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the 30th day of June, 1934, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp affixed order; that there is no charge in the said indictment that the said defendants made any transfer whatsoever of the double-barrel 12 guage shotgun having less than 18 inches in length, and said indictment, therefore, does not charge facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States.

5. That the indictment charges the defendants "not having in their possession a stamp affixed written order for said firearms, as provided and required by Section 1132(c) and section 1132(j) Title 26, United States Code, and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, approved June 26, 1934"; that said Section 1132(c) and Section 1132(j) does not make it a violation to merely fail to possess a stamp affixed written order for said firearms, and a failure to charge a transfer of said firearms by or to the said defendants, fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States.

What Judge Heartsill Ragon wrote was:

The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, c.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The demurrer is accordingly sustained.
(the Bang! part :) )

1,223 posted on 03/14/2007 5:00:44 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Isn't that an application of federalism? Each state unique in the rights it protects

Every American is entitled to the protection of their inalienable rights, regardless of what State or local government say. You're on the wrong forum if you say otherwise:

Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. - Jim Robinson, FR Mission Statement

and the laws it enforces?

Like health care, education, labor laws, poverty programs, etc.? Oh yeah, the "substantial effects" fraud put those in the hands of Congress and the federal courts.

Hypocrite.

1,224 posted on 03/14/2007 5:02:55 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1218 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Mr. Miller had standing to present evidence that his shotgun was a militia-type weapon"

Whatever he says means that the way it is? Golly gosh, I wonder if he'll say his weapon was a militia-type weapon? Gee, what do you think?

Guessed you missed the "present evidence" part of his statement. Which is something done by one's lawyer on one's behalf.

Hell, as far as we know, he wasn't even a militia member!

Not that it matters, but he was 40 years old when the case was decided by the Supreme Court and thus he was a member of the federal militia, which then as now, was defined as all males 18-45.

I'm sure he was also a member of the militia of Oklahoma, which likely had a different age criteria.

That aside, he was punk and a typical low level gang member of the Dirty Thirties. He'd been involved in a jailbreak where a deputy was killed, but turned state's evidence.

I suspect that fact may have been part of the reason he had that short barreled shotgun in the first place, and also the reason he was dead, shot four times with a .38, before the Supreme Court released the decision.

His co-defendant in the original case, Frank Layton, was no nice guy either, yet after he pleaded guilty the Judge, who had originally refused to accept guilty pleas before the appeal of the dismissal, gave him five years probation, which he successfully served.

1,225 posted on 03/14/2007 5:12:59 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1185 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The original court found Miller guilty. The appellate court reversed that, saying the NFA violated the second amendment (without saying why). The prosecutor then appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the USSC reversed the appellate court and remanded the case back to them to determine if the weapon bore a reasonable relationship to a militia.

Shows how much you know about the case. The original court did not even try Miller and Layton. Instead, on petition of their lawyer, dismissed the case on grounds that the law in question violated the second amendment, and thus constituted no law at all. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court, there was no action at the Court of Appeals level. You could know that much just by reading the Supreme Court decision which states:

District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

The cause is here by direct appeal.

Better do your homework before posting such "made up out of whole cloth" musings.

1,226 posted on 03/14/2007 5:23:50 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1189 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
That's not what the Miller court asked! I am getting really PO'd with people rephrasing the argument, yourself included.

Those were the words of the US First Circuit Court, not mine. Take your beef to them. Of course they wrote that much closer in time, and in knowledge of the Miller case, than you or I, and I suspect the Judge who wrote the words has passed on, so you'll have to complain to him when you meet him.

1,227 posted on 03/14/2007 5:27:02 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If the second amendment isn't referring to state militias, that to what militias is it referring?

The same one that they were referring to in the Militia Act of 1792? That act speaks of "the militia":

, singular. Except in one place where refers to militias then existing as independent units, some not organized by local or state goverments, but "free standing" as it were.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,.

Later, and current law, defined(s) "the militia" as consisting of all males 18-45, rather than speaking of them being required to enroll in the militia.


1,228 posted on 03/14/2007 5:45:18 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If the second amendment isn't referring to state militias, that to what militias is it referring?

The same one that they were referring to in the Militia Act of 1792? That act speaks of "the militia":

, singular. Except in one place where refers to militias then existing as independent units, some not organized by local or state goverments, but "free standing" as it were.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,.

Later, and current law, defined(s) "the militia" as consisting of all males 18-45, rather than speaking of them being required to enroll in the militia.


1,229 posted on 03/14/2007 5:45:28 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1191 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
At the time of this Supreme Court inquiry, WWII was years away. Why are you even bringing it up? Cases was years away. Why bring it up?

What inquiry? There was no testimony, no evidence, just the government's brief, with no appearance for the former defendents. (remember their case had been dismissed by the District Court?)

Why bring it up? To show how US Federal Circuit Judges "read" the meaning of the rule set forth in Miller

You don't suppose they, being closer in time, by a lot, since cases was only two years, more or less, after the Miller decision. WW-II was not "years away" when Miller was decided, but mere months. The Cases court was referring to events in Europe at the time, where the war had been raging for around 2 years.

Nice misdirection with the "years away"

The military ordered and used tens of thousands of "trench guns" for the military. They were 20".

18". Get your facts straight, even when they support your argument.

1,230 posted on 03/14/2007 5:52:05 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1183 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
In 1787, there was nothing to stop a state from denying the protection of fundamental rights to their OWN citizens (much less citizens of another state) except the state constitution.

Actually there was, although AFAIK, it was never appealed to, and thus like the 3rd amendment is judicial terra incognita. Even laying aside the second paragraph of Article VI, see Article III, section 4.

1,231 posted on 03/14/2007 6:02:25 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
There was no mention of rights in your post #1213 -- that's the one you asked me to comment on. Now you bring up something else.

It was clear from the Corfield quote in #1213 that J. Washington was speaking of fundamental rights. You refused to accept it, so I further quoted from the same opinion - demonstrating that, in fact, he was speaking of fundamental rights.

1,232 posted on 03/14/2007 6:46:46 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1220 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Bookmark....
1,233 posted on 03/15/2007 4:22:28 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad
Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals?

Well, THIS century, certainly. Even the last century, the last opinion expressed by the USSC that was narowly "on point" happened in the first third of the 20th century. The Miller case.

1,234 posted on 03/15/2007 5:33:47 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Yeah, now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Not quite. This gun [with a 60km/36 miles range]

Not this one [M777, range circa 30-40 km (assisted), 22.5-30 km (unassisted)]

There is, however, a nifty design workup of a wheeled SP versiuon of the M777, based on a Marine LAV/Stryker 8-wheel chassis- though it's likely not amphibious like a LAV.

1,235 posted on 03/15/2007 8:26:24 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier; domenad
Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals?

Well, THIS century, certainly. Even the last century, the last opinion expressed by the USSC that was narowly "on point" happened in the first third of the 20th century. The Miller case.

The decision in Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio was also in this XXI Century. And if the DC *militia* court decision does not go to the Supremes, Plona v. UPS almost certainly will.

1,236 posted on 03/15/2007 8:32:46 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1234 | View Replies]

To: archy

Actually, the M777 is exactly what I want: towable, and small enough to park in my driveway (somehow I don't think the HOA would object).


1,237 posted on 03/15/2007 10:35:53 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1235 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
So that's what a Liberator pistol looks like...
1,238 posted on 03/17/2007 2:36:35 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,051-1,1001,101-1,1501,151-1,2001,201-1,238 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson