Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban

[Critch]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

[BILLY D.]

OK. so where is our resident mouthpiece?

The way this goes down in my book is the SCOTUS has always deferred such cases to the Lower Courts findings. They have refused to hear such cases.

They expect the Mayor to appeal this ruling. So just who in tarnation is he going to appeal to.?

Sounds like a dead carp in the bathtub to me. Hizzoner is out of appeals in my book.

This sounds like a done deal to me.

What say you Fabs.

Best wishes, Bill

[multibeard]

Billy

This ruling came out of the court of appeals so it could end up in the supreme court. I don't know who Scotus is so can't say any thing about that.

The important part of the ruling is that the appeals court has put a squash to the gun banners always saying that gun ownership had to be for a regulated malitia when they stated that it did not pertain to ony a regulated malitia.

A score for the good guys if it doesn't get over turned by the supreme court.

[BILLY D.]

multibeard

I guess I could have done a little bit better. SCOTUS is The Supreme Court of the United States.

Historicaly, the Supreme Court has refused or deffered any ruling regarding the Second Amendment. If the SCOTUS maintains this precedence Washington DC has no other recourse. It's over.

From what I've read and seen reported I'd rather be in Iraq than live in D.C., it's safer in Iraq. The police department is as corrupt as the rest of the city. How a place with all that history and beautiful buildings can be surrounded by such slime is unfathomable.

One thing does bother me about a sudden influx of firearms into the city. I really can't believe a lot of those people are the "outdoors" type and have been trained to handle firearms. But I have to trust in human nature and my fellow man and say I guess if they are smart enough to want to protect themselves and purchase firearms they should be allowed to do so.

Those people have a lot more gumption than I do. I could never live under such circumstances.

Best wishes, Bill

[fabsroman]

I got a good laugh out of the SCOTUS comment. I knew what it meant when I read it, but that is my field.

Constitutional questions are federal questions, and they allow a person/entity to bring a suit in federal Court. If this issue started in a federal Court, which I would assume it did, it can make it to the Supreme Court of the United State of America ("SCOTUS") if the parties want to go that far. Can you imagine if this case makes it to SCOTUS and the Court upholds the case. I would love to see anybody try to pass any "assault weapon" ban or anything to that nature.

DC has had a handgun ban for decades, and way too many people are still being killed with them. If I were living in SE DC, I would want an entire arsenal. There are a lot of good folk down there, but it is the few bad ones that ruin it for everybody. Give everybody some guns and see if these bad apples are still willing to break into apartments, or hold people up on the street. Maybe this is what the city needs, because the police and the govt haven't done anything in decades to make it a safer place to live.

Good for the Court. With all the corruption in govt, people are going to have to fend for themselves in many places. Look at New Orleans. I would hate to have been without a gun in that situation. My liberal friends that saw what happened in New Orleans have since bought guns and taken training classes.

[BILLY D.]

Fabs

It was the U.S. District Appeals Court that ruled against D.C. and declared the ban unconstitutional.

You are correct in your assumption that if the SCOTUS were to rule these actions uncontitutional all hell would break loose. That would blow the LIBERAL slant that 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia all to pieces.

This gets to be almost as big a fight as the Posse Commitatus act. I think that came close to being broken in N.O. I always understood it to mean Government Troops can't/won't be utilized against civilians. That worked well in Lousyana.

The Military were more than happy to go around and collect private citizens firearms. Don't get me started on that subject.

I don't know how many layers there are to the State, Federal Justice system. I can tell you if you ever read a Government Organizational chart you'd have a headache. What a goat rope.

Best wishes, Bill

[fabsroman]

Okay, I have a copy of the Complaint in front of me and this case started in the US District Court for the District of Columbia and was then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As such, it started in the federal Court system and it can make its way all the way to the Supreme Court, and that would be its next stop if there is another appeal. Do you think the government of the District of Columbia is going to appeal this decision? There is a paper by the Attorney General supporting the Court's ruling already out. Somehow, I seriously doubt they are going to appeal it, unless they have an agenda of showing the entire country that guns cannot be banned from law abiding citizens.

Funny thing is that the legislature for the District of Columbia was debating on passing a law removing the old statute prohibiting people from owning handguns or firearms that would work on demand. Essentially, a person could not own a handgun at all, and if they owned a long gun they could not keep it loaded and it had to be disabled in some way (e.g., trigger lock). The legislature was about to overturn this stupid law that has been on the books since 1976, but they refrained so that this case could be heard. If they had overturned the law, the case would have been moot and it would have been dismissed. I started to read a pretty good article on this matter, but it is too long, I am too tired, and I still have to finish working on the baby's room because the furniture comes tomorrow. So, I will post it for you guys to read. I hope Maryland follows suit and leaves this stupid assault weapons ban off the books, but who knows what is going to happen with that.

Here is that article:

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rl062805.html

Maybe I will finish reading it tomorrow, or take a copy of it with me to Lamaze class.

[fabsroman]

Has anybody seen the actual opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I am dying to read it, but I cannot find it on Westlaw. Where did you guys find out about this case? I am in complete disbelief about this. Maybe it is time that the Courts allow people to defend themselves so that criminals will think twice about doing what they do.

[BILLY D.]

Fabs

I first found out about it when I read it on The Predatormasters forum.

Heres a link that has what you may be looking for as far as Court Documents.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf


Bill

[multibeard]

Billy---I am glad you found a link to the ruling. I have seen threads all over the net on the decision but couldn't remember where I saw the link. I read 10 pages of the 75 and now have a head ache from trying to understand the legal mumbo jumbo. I guess I will leave it to Fabs to try and figure it all out

At first I thought you had miss spelled scrotum. LOL Thanks for enlightening this guy from the back woods.

[Aim to maim]

Originally posted by multibeard

At first I thought you had miss spelled scrotum. LOL Thanks for enlightening this guy from the back woods.

It could have been even more confusing if he had made reference to POTUS.:p ;) :D

[BILLY D.]

Aim to maim and multibeard

Refering to the legal mumbo jumbo, the most important line of the whole paper was Judge Silbermans statement, "WE REVERSE". The rest is merely substantiation of their, the judges opinions for the reversal.

It would appear the Judges actually read the Constitution and their interpretation was the way the Founding Fathers meant it to read.

I always got a kick out of the Governments use of acronyms. This practice became very popular during the 70's. We used to sit around making up acronyms that weren't real nice and some unprintable. ;)

As far as my studies go, the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to hear arguments concerning the Second Amendment. At least since 1939 anyway. Whether they will hear this case is a matter of conjecture. Right now I think there is a 2nd Amendment friendly atmosphere in the SCOTUS to hear this argument.

I personaly believe the fight is far from over. The socialist/liberals will drag this out forever.

One thing that really scorched my shorts was when the Mayor of D.C. said how this action by the court will increase crime and all that has been done in the past will go to waste as far as crime prevention. Horse hockey.

Hizzoners standing in front of a camera and saying D.C.'s crime rate is low thanks to the previous gun ban is a bald faced lie and ludicrous. Last I checked D.C. was one of the murder capitals of the world. Yep, crime is low. Lower than what? You can just about bet the ranch Hizzoner lives in a gated community. Ain't no crime where I live. Yeah, right. Meanwhile a few bloks away kids are living in crack houses. Phoney *&$%#@^%.

Well I'm gone. It's PEPCID time.

Best wishes, Bill

[Aim to maim]

Originally posted by BILLY D.
Aim to maim and multibeard


I always got a kick out of the Governments use of acronyms. This practice became very popular during the 70's. We used to sit around making up acronyms that weren't real nice and some unprintable. ;)



Yup, brings to mind a time when some of my fellow miscreants and I were brainstorming a proposed Justice Department (DOJ) agency Fast Action Response Team. Not totally surprising from an agency whose acronym could be interpreted as Don't Expect Anything or Drunk Every Afternoon. ;) :D

In all seriousness, this decsion has the potential to be the most profound event in the right to keep and bear firearms battle in any of you lifetimes; one way or the other. The DC government will probably request a hearing "en banque." It will be interesting to see how that goes. The outcome will likely depend on the political composition of the full DC Court of Appeals.

[fabsroman]

They might not request a hearing en banc if they don't want this to go to the Supreme Court. As it stands, the opinion only applies to the District of Columbia. If the appellants (e.g., Parker, et al) end up losing they can appeal it to the Supreme Court and then the holding in that case will be law throughout the land. If it is a pro gun holding, I won't have to worry too much about this stupid assault weapons ban in Maryland, which my representative has yet to respond to my e-mail that I sent him several weeks ago. This guy works at a law firm that my father was a client of 15 years before this guy even moved to Maryland from Michigan 4 years ago. I just love the fact that we have a 34 year old from Michigan that has lived here 4 years trying to decide what is best for this state.

Now, I need something much stronger than Pepcid.

[wrenchman]

LoL well fabs that might be the reasen we are getting our pro gun laws passed here it would be nice if we could send the rest out to.
We will try and get them to dispers in a even ways so one state dont get all our loosers.
Besides look at our state she is frome ont.
How she got voted back in is unknone to me.

[denton]

Lots of posting on this over at www.volokh.com.

I'm definitely not an attorney, so treat the following accordingly:

This is now the highest stakes poker game the country has had on gun rights in a long, long time. Both the 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit have delivered very carefully documented and well reasoned opinions supporting an individual right. The 9th Circuit has rendered an opinion that simply declared that the 2nd amendment granted a collective right, with no supporting facts or reasoning. Most of the other circuit courts have ruled in favor of the collective right theory.

If this goes to the Supreme Court, and the ruling is in favor of the individual rights interpretation, the anti-freedom lobby loses big time, and probably PERMANENTLY. Once the individual right is established, laws restricting firearms can only be passed or maintained if it can be shown that the government has an overriding interest at stake.

The opposite does not exactly apply if the Supremes hold that it is a collective right. The legislative tide may be mixed, but is definitely running in our favor. That can continue after an adverse Supreme ruling. An individual right could theoretically be granted by federal legislation. So I think the anti's may have more to lose on this one. So they may take their loss, and not file an appeal or even ask for a hearing by the full DC Circuit.

In the event that it does go to the Supreme Court, and we do win, it is a huge victory, but it does not immediately sweep away all the bad laws. For example, there are two examples on record of people being arrested at an NY airport, as they changed planes and re-checked their bags with firearms in them, in absolute, direct, open violation of the "travelling" immunity granted by FOPA. New York will lose the suits that follow, and will have to stop the practice. That will be the course for many of the bad laws on the books. Someone will have to challenge them and win, before they go away. It will be a long grind, and will take decades. However, if we ever get an individual rights stake through the heart of this issue, the long term outcome is inevitable.

BTW, there is a serious consequence of the collective rights theory that seldom gets mentioned: The National Guard is not a state run organization. It is funded, equipped, and directed by the federal government. If you believe the collective rights view, you also have to believe that individual states have the right to keep and maintain their own state armies, independent of the US military, and in direct violation of Section 10 of the US Constitution. You have to believe that in passing a "collective rights" item in the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers either did not notice this conflict, or didn't care about it. I see no way of resolving that conflict while maintaining a collective rights interpretation.

[fabsroman]

denton,

I am an attorney and what your wrote sounds really spot on. Thing is that most people (e.g., antis) only see what they want to see. They see a single "sniper" attack with an AR-15 wherein the assailants were shooting the gun out of a hole cut in the trunk of a vehicle with pillows all around the gun to keep the sound down, and they think that assault weapons need to be banned and there should be no 30 round clips available. Hello, the AR-15 in this case wasn't even used as an "assault weapon". The shots were not long shots and they were generally single shots. The guy could have had no clip whatsoever in the gun and still made the shots. The police also botched the investigation up, which resulted in a couple more deaths before the perps were caught. Maybe we should pass a law requiring law enforcement to have a certain GPA before they get hired. Maybe we should pass a law increasing LEO's salaries so that we can have better LEO's. Some of the LEO's I meet are dumber than a box of rocks. One of them that lives in my neighborhood tried to back her Crown Vic patrol car over a 2 foot high mound of snow into its designated parking spot right next to her townhouse, and she couldn't understand why it was stuck. She was digging under the tires when the car's frame was stuck on top of the snow and the tires were merely dangling there useless. I spent an hour digging her out and really wished I had a winch or a chain for my truck at the time.

Not that gun control isn't an important issue, but I think Congress has a lot more important things to do than to spend time trying to pass a gun ban of any type. When crime and guns become as big an issue as the economy, health care, and retirement, which effects almost every American I know, then Congress should spend a lot of time trying to figure out what it should do with the gun issue. Maybe, just maybe, if the inner city kids weren't living in poverty, things would be a lot better all the way around and they wouldn't be shooting one another left and right or stealing from everybody and their mother. Politicians make me sick.

[skeet]

As Fabs said ,I think you are pretty much on with your assessment I really think the anti's will want to leave this alone. If they appeal it as many think they will do the Supremes will probably have to go along with all the prior rulings in the past concerning individual rights given in the 2nd amendment. If the papers(Federalist papers) that have been compiled from the era of the writing of the constitution are ever read and understood the Supreme court would have to go with individual rights. It is so clear.

Now as to the idea that the congress will not try to pass any real gun control laws. Fab's I think you are wrong. The liberal people in congress feel that after the last election, they have a mandate to make these "Needed" laws. They want them so we must "need" them. They will never stop, Fabs. And I feel you know that. And as far as the Assault weapon bill in Md....best if you go buy an AR right now. You DO know what the political climate in Md is like...as do I.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

The bill has been introduced every year since the sniper shootings in 2001, and it has failed every year. I am hoping that is the case this year too. However, I have the funds set aside to buy AR-15 and AR-10 lowers should the need arise. In fact, I am about to post something about the lowers on here because I need some advice on what options to get, but that will have to wait for another time when I have more time to do the research and post informed questions.

[skeet]

I was at a gun show this weekend and bought and sold a DPMS Sporter that was NIB. Made a couple hundred on the darn thing. I woulda kept it but I already have a Bushmaster varminter. I also think I like the Bushmaster a bit better. The bbl on mine is a little longetr and fluted to reduce the weight somewhat. I almost sold my Colt Sporter but decided to keep it...for the time being. I still wanna buy a Barrett.

Fabs you know the political climate changed in Md with the new Liberal mandate? They will never stop trying.

[TheeBadOne]

Since police officers take a lot of flak when one of their lot does wrong, I think it is only fair to take notice when one of them does right. Especially when one of them is almost single-handedly responsible for the recent victory in Parker v. District of Columbia that is a huge decision in its own right and may well go to the Supreme Court.

First, you need to understand the concept of "standing" as used by the courts. The requirements for standing are as follows:

1. Must show personal injury (actual or threatened) as a result of putatively illegal conduct.
2. Injury can be fairly traced to challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision

You must meet both of these requirements or the court will simply refuse to hear your case on thr grounds that you have no standing. This is exactly what happened to a similar case in DC that the NRA started (Seegars). Using a stricter standard for standing than other circuits (a standard set by another gun case Navegear (a maker of the Tec-9 who sued after the 1994 ban)), the D.C. Circuit court determined that none of the plaintiffs in Seegars had standing because none of them had been arrested or even threatened with arrest yet. As a result, they had no personal injury according to the court.

Parker came within a hair of going the same way. The one thing that saved it is that D.C. Special Police Officer Dick Heller had applied for a D.C. firearms permit for his home and been denied by the city. The denial of a license or a permit was held by the D.C. court to give standing to all of the complaints in Parker, so Parker succeeded where Seegars failed.

Now Mr. Heller was a police officer. He already had a firearm. He could have very easily relied on his fellow officers and ignored the law. Instead, in a situation where the city of D.C. was his employer and all kinds of political pressure could be brought to bear on him, he did the right thing and signed on to the Parker lawsuit as a plaintiff, basically suing his employer. I don't know what life is like for a police officer who goes against the wishes of his top bosses in a public and dramatic fashion; but I bet it wasn't fun for Mr. Heller.

Here we had a man who had an easy way out that would give him what he wanted, who instead took the harder road and stood up for all of us. So let's give him credit for his work.

[fabsroman]

TBO, let me start by saying that there are plenty of good police officers out there, probably the majority, but I still think we can do better by attracting better qualified people with higher paying salaries, and/or retaining the better candidates by paying higher salaries. The problem with bad police officers and bad judges is that they have so much power. That is what makes it scary. Sames goes for bad politicians.

Now, on to the standing issue. I was reading some of the pleadings the other day, and there was a motion directly related to this issue where the government was trying to have the case dismissed for a lack of standing. The Plaintiffs' reply was that there had been threats made in open Court that the government would prosecute these 6 people if they broke the law, and there were also statements made elsewhere in I believe newspaper interviews and between attorneys wherein the government said it would pursue these charges if the Plaintiffs broke the law. That gave the Plaintiffs standing for this case. Now, I will admit that I didn't read all of the pleadings in the case, and I didn't even read the Judge's ruling (i.e., Order) on the Motion to Dismiss, so I could be a little off base on exactly how the Plaintiffs made it through. However, since all the Plaintiffs' names stayed on the case throughout, I will assume that they all had standing. Otherwise, some of them would have been dismissed.

I applaud all of them for stepping up to the plate and fighting this fight, and I applaud the attorneys that fought the fight too. From the pleadings that I read from the attorneys for the Plaintiffs/Appelants, they seem to be really good. I wish I had been working on that case. Then again, I should probably watch what I wish for because I would be tossing and turning on that case because there is so much riding on it for me personally. It would have been a tough one for me.

I will leave with all good LEO's deserve a pat on the back, and a raise. However, I dealt with a LEO two weeks ago in a protectice order because he had threatened his ex-wife over the telephone. He was being investigated by IA and on a separate criminal charge at the time, and partially blamed his wife for it. His children had been receiving counseling for the abuse that he put them through, there was a consent order that he would have no contact with his children, the counselor recommended that the ex-wife obtain a protective order, the police department recommended that the ex-wife obtain a protectice order, the abuse had been going on for several years prior to all this but the police didn't do anything when my client reported it, the guy held a gun to my client's head and one of his children on two separate occassions, and it finally took his threatening a fellow police officer before anything came of it. Oh yeah, during this time he received an Officer of the Year award. This seems like a problem with the police force if I ever heard of one. Then, a couple of months ago, a Maryland State Trooper was arrested on statutory rape charges, and he admitted to being guilty, which is somewhat admirable, but still disturbing. Again, it is the few bad apples that screw it up for all of us, but the good guys don't get any praise just for doing their jobs well.

[BILLY D.]

Fabs

Your last post kind of ties up with the concealed carry post I made earlier.

The reason the info on the Roanoke Times posting the name of CCW permits disappeared from their website is because a few of the permit holders were women with protective orders against their former mates. Obviously they are not the type to make a 911 call, and as far as I'm concerned, good for them. Personal responsibility rules in these matters.

Police departments don't worry about preventing crime, they are the sweep up crew.

Bill

[skeet]

Quote"Police departments don't worry about preventing crime, they are the sweep up crew."


Billy that is perfectly true. And quite often the high profile departments really don't solve a lot of crime. The state troopers are usually out there writing tickets raising capital. It's the smaller departments that solve the most crime. Probably departments like TBO's...although I don't know how large his department is.:confused:

[Aim to maim]

Originally posted by fabsroman
They might not request a hearing en banc if they don't want this to go to the Supreme Court. Now, I need something much stronger than Pepcid.

Mr. Roman,

Thanks for not pointing out my glaringly incorrect spelling of "en banc" in response to my post. I knew there was a good reason laymen are not permitted to practice law.:) ;)

[fabsroman]

Aim to Maim,

I don't get to bent out of shape over grammar and spelling on chat boards unless somebody makes a mistake while insulting me. Then, the gloves are off.

As far as I am concerned, I wish the law were a lot easier for everybody to understand. I spend most of my time educating my clients about the law and the tax code. It really shouldn't be this way, but I guess society has just gotten too complicated for it to be any simpler.

LEO's can precent crime sometimes when they respond to a call in time, but if it is a life or death situation I think I am going to rely on myself first and law enforcement second. LEO's do plenty of good things. As an example, they respond to car accidents and save lives that way. It is just hard for them to be in the right place at the right time because they cannot predict where the criminal is going to strike next. For instance, if a criminal intends to break into my house, law enforcement would have absolutely no clue about it. They have a tough job, and that is why it is our job to help them out. I applaud Ms. Parker in the law suit who is trying to clean up her neighborhood where they are selling crack on the corner. A LEO friend of mine works in PG County by the Redskins stadium and he said that anybody standing on a street corner is selling crack down there. He has arrested plenty of them. My issue is how they keep getting out of jail. Once, he arrested a guy in a downpour. The guy was standing on the corner selling crack with an umbrella and he didn't even run because he didn't want to get wet. There is something seriously wrong with our justice system when somebody would prefer to be locked up for dealing drugs over getting wet in the rain. There is something truly wrong with it indeed.

[TheeBadOne]

How about:

-when The Police target known bad guys, tail, surveil, nail and jail them, sending them to prison when the points/probation add up.

-when The Police perform probationary enforcement, sending a multi-convicted felon back to prison for violating probation (curfew/alcohol/hanging w/dirtbags) thus preventing more crimes.

-when the Police do sex offender verification, and send them to prison for not keeping a current address, or not listing an alternative address, thus preventing them from committing further crimes.

-when the Police aggressively target areas of high crime, which is noticed by the criminals doing the crimes, who then move elsewhere.

-when the Police enforce zoning for bars/hotels, thus preventing "attractive nuisances" reducing crime.

-when The Police provide fraud prevention education for businesses

Those are just some of the things that go on daily in a Police Dept that the average Joe is unaware of.

[fabsroman]

Well, I wish you guys would catch some of my clients that are on probation. It kills me to know they are on probation, they do not have a driver's license, and they continue to drive like it is no big deal. It is like they are thumbing their nose at the system.

I have had a client on probation, and while on probation he got in a ton of other trouble, and for the most part the Judges let him off of everything. I finally stopped representing him.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
I have had a client on probation, and while on probation he got in a ton of other trouble, and for the most part the Judges let him off of everything. I finally stopped representing him. If he got in a ton of other trouble, and the judges kept letting him off, that means the Cops were doing their part and catching him, right?
Originally posted by fabsroman
Well, I wish you guys would catch some of my clients that are on probation. It kills me to know they are on probation, they do not have a driver's license, and they continue to drive like it is no big deal. It is like they are thumbing their nose at the system.

You ever go fishing?

[fabsroman]

Agreed.

"You ever go fishing?"

LOL

A friend of mine got pulled over by a State Trooper and he asked the Trooper why the Trooper pulled him over because he was going the same speed as the other 10 cars around him. The Trooper asked him he had ever been fishing. My buddy replied with yes. The Trooper than asked him how many fish he usually caught when he threw a hook into a school of fish. Not the same thing you are trying to say, but I get the point. It also applies to hunting. Some days you get something, some days you don't.

[TheeBadOne]

Very same point. http://www.huntchat.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

As far as catching these violators, any reason you don't call & report them when the violation is happening? (would the best way to catch them)

[fabsroman]

I think I would get disbarred if I were to turn a client in to the police. About the only way I can turn a client in is if I think that somebody is in immenant danger from serious bodily harm or death because my client has told me that they are going to hurt them. Then, I can alert the authorities about it and the potential victim. Other than that, I have to continue watching them drive on suspended/revoked licenses and doing all the other things that violate their probation/parole. Luckily, I have been doing a lot less criminal work lately, which suits me just fine.