Liberals and ACLU beware
It is about time that those who defend the Constitution and its amendments faught back. S.C.O.T.U.S., is getting ready to take a look at the UnConstitutionality of the Washington D.C. antigun laws.
D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms.
The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence. However as we all know and statistics clearly show. Washington D.C. is one of if not the most crime ridden place in the United States. (do not include the bribbery and graft of elected officials , as they are not gun related)
A federal appeals court ruled March 9th that the District's longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.
The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's language on the right to bear arms.
This is far from the end of the story.
The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years.
In the eyes of those who claim a militia. Thier idea of gun ownership goes to an armory in which all weapons are kept. In other words access to defend ones self from oppression, and criminals is a controled object. By keeping the handguns out of the hands of legal law abidding citizens they can control and force thier way or opinion on others. A fine line to be sure as some do not see the oppression or Orwellian aspect of preventing citizens the right to own or posses handguns.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said the city is committed to pursuing additional appeals, adding: "I am personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision. It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." Although once again the statistics clearly point in the opposite direction.
Fenty said city officials will "do everything in our power to work to get the decision overturned, and we will vigorously enforce our handgun laws during that time."
City attorneys said that it would take at least 30 days for the court's decision to go into effect, during which time the District probably will file its appeal. During an appeal, which could last more than a year, the current law would remain in effect, the lawyers said.
Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. All three were appointed by Republican presidents. Demostrating that common sense on the bench is a must. WHile Democrats have appointed legislatures to the bench who make law and not interpret law. (a topic for another posting)
"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.
The residents filed their lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- months after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment. They were aided by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates personal liberties.
The suit said the ban on handgun ownership violates the Second Amendment, which states: "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."
Yesterday's majority opinion said that the District has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the D.C. law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks, saying that would render the weapons useless.
In her dissent, Henderson wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." She also said that because the District is not a state, the Second Amendment does not apply.
So in Hendersons opinion the U.S.Constitution is not in effect in the district of Columbia. Hence then any and all rights, services, and governenment services paid by taxpayers should then be stopped? If the second amendment does not apply then none of the Bill of Rights should apply. You can not selectively decide on which amendments you will support and use and those you won't.
Critics have long said that the D.C. law is ineffective, noting that the city has had hundreds of homicides in recent years, most of which were committed with handguns. Of last year's 169 homicides, 137 were committed with firearms, D.C. police said. Enforcing the strict handgun ban is difficult with so many guns on the streets, but police recovered more than 2,600 guns last year.
This was not lost on the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, Silberman noted that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
Now the case moves on to S.C.O.T.U.S., that sthe Supreme Court of the United States. In cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia. It is likely that with the recent appointee on the court it will remain a court of interpretation and not of legislation. this court should uphold that the District of Columbia is entitled to the rights of under the Constitution , but that the antigun laws are UnConstitutional.
Though referance is clearly made in the second amendment to a militia. It is writen just like the first amendment. "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 Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The wording is interchangable as to the creation of an individual right.
So now that this case looks to be upheld in the Supreme Court, the question is ... what other legislated laws from the bench can we now correct and bring back into line with the Constitution?
D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms.
The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence. However as we all know and statistics clearly show. Washington D.C. is one of if not the most crime ridden place in the United States. (do not include the bribbery and graft of elected officials , as they are not gun related)
A federal appeals court ruled March 9th that the District's longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.
The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's language on the right to bear arms.
This is far from the end of the story.
The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years.
In the eyes of those who claim a militia. Thier idea of gun ownership goes to an armory in which all weapons are kept. In other words access to defend ones self from oppression, and criminals is a controled object. By keeping the handguns out of the hands of legal law abidding citizens they can control and force thier way or opinion on others. A fine line to be sure as some do not see the oppression or Orwellian aspect of preventing citizens the right to own or posses handguns.
D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said the city is committed to pursuing additional appeals, adding: "I am personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision. It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." Although once again the statistics clearly point in the opposite direction.
Fenty said city officials will "do everything in our power to work to get the decision overturned, and we will vigorously enforce our handgun laws during that time."
City attorneys said that it would take at least 30 days for the court's decision to go into effect, during which time the District probably will file its appeal. During an appeal, which could last more than a year, the current law would remain in effect, the lawyers said.
Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, also signed by Thomas B. Griffith. Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. All three were appointed by Republican presidents. Demostrating that common sense on the bench is a must. WHile Democrats have appointed legislatures to the bench who make law and not interpret law. (a topic for another posting)
"We conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms," Silberman said in the 58-page majority ruling.
The residents filed their lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- months after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft declared that gun bans violate the Second Amendment. They were aided by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates personal liberties.
The suit said the ban on handgun ownership violates the Second Amendment, which states: "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."
Yesterday's majority opinion said that the District has a right to regulate and require the registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the D.C. law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks, saying that would render the weapons useless.
In her dissent, Henderson wrote that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual States." She also said that because the District is not a state, the Second Amendment does not apply.
So in Hendersons opinion the U.S.Constitution is not in effect in the district of Columbia. Hence then any and all rights, services, and governenment services paid by taxpayers should then be stopped? If the second amendment does not apply then none of the Bill of Rights should apply. You can not selectively decide on which amendments you will support and use and those you won't.
Critics have long said that the D.C. law is ineffective, noting that the city has had hundreds of homicides in recent years, most of which were committed with handguns. Of last year's 169 homicides, 137 were committed with firearms, D.C. police said. Enforcing the strict handgun ban is difficult with so many guns on the streets, but police recovered more than 2,600 guns last year.
This was not lost on the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, Silberman noted that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
Now the case moves on to S.C.O.T.U.S., that sthe Supreme Court of the United States. In cases of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia. It is likely that with the recent appointee on the court it will remain a court of interpretation and not of legislation. this court should uphold that the District of Columbia is entitled to the rights of under the Constitution , but that the antigun laws are UnConstitutional.
Though referance is clearly made in the second amendment to a militia. It is writen just like the first amendment. "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 Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The wording is interchangable as to the creation of an individual right.
So now that this case looks to be upheld in the Supreme Court, the question is ... what other legislated laws from the bench can we now correct and bring back into line with the Constitution?
