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/...3/04-7041a.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.

[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.

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.