Washington D.c. Gun Ban Overturned By Feds

[Norm]

This is a little OT....

 

A federal court overturned a lower courts ruling in Washington DC saying that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to just militias....

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6469573,00.html

 

QUOTE

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.'' The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional. In 2004, a lower-court judge had told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

 

This seems to be good news for the 2nd amendment.

 

Norm http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/woot.gif

[Lancer]

This could lead to a huge change in the status quo if this case makes it to the Supreme Court. The court hasn't heard a case like this concerning the 2nd Amendment since the 1930's.

[Norm]

Here is a link to the Court's full opinion in PDF format....

 

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common...03/04-7041a.pdf

 

Norm http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Warden]

It's kind of funny, it seems that most of the high crime cities in this country (Washington,D.C., Chicago, etc...) have highly restrictive gun laws or just outright bans. Maybe with the ban being overturned, could the courts are figuring this out? I'm sure that the liberal politicians never will.

 

Dave

[full auto 45]

D.C. what a screw ball town. The mayor can smoke crack and do sloppy whores on camera, get away with it, then later as a city council man not pay his taxes for 5 years and they still think he is great.

[jpw43]

"It's kind of funny, it seems that most of the high crime cities in this country (Washington,D.C., Chicago, etc...) have highly restrictive gun laws or just outright bans"

 

And, of course, who does the ban affect? Honest citizens, of course. Criminals, by definition, ignore laws. I still don't see why gun banners don't get that through their thick heads.

The Sullivan Act in the early 1900's was a prime example. It made the muggers very happy having all those unarmed citizens to choose from!

I heard that the Thompson was available for open sale in the beginning in NYC because the ban was for long guns and hand guns, but the Thompson was neither.

[cavediver]

From our liberal friends at the Washington Post. Editorial page.

They cant believe the court extended the right to bear arms to individuals.

I hope this goes to the Surpeme Court and it is upheld.

I happened to be in DC when it was announced. I wanted to drive but flew because I could not carry in the car because of the DC law so I flew. I thought only a police state would prevent someone from being able to protect themselves on their own property.

Just had to send this rubbish for you to read.

 

Dangerous Ruling

An appeals court ruling would put handguns back in D.C. homes.

Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A18

 

 

IN OVERTURNING the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns yesterday, a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment. If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.

 

The 2 to 1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down sections of a 1976 law that bans city residents from having handguns in their homes. The court also overturned the law's requirement that shotguns and rifles be stored disassembled or with trigger locks. The court grounded its unprecedented ruling in the finding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond militias to individuals. The activities the Second Amendment protects, the judges wrote, "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

 

 

 

Never before has a law been struck down on that basis. The Supreme Court, in its landmark 1939 decision United States v. Miller, stated that the Second Amendment was adopted "with obvious purpose" of protecting the ability of states to organize militias and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Nearly every other federal court of appeals has concurred in that finding. The dissenting judge in yesterday's opinion, Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Republican appointee like the other two judges on the panel, rightly lambasted the majority for its willful disregard of Supreme Court precedent.

 

While the ruling caught observers off guard, it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights. Indeed, the D.C. lawsuit, by six residents assisted by the Cato Institute, was filed in 2003, just months after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said gun bans are unconstitutional.

 

The NRA predictably welcomed yesterday's ruling. According to its myth, only criminals have had guns in the city and now law-abiding citizens will be able to arm themselves for protection. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) counters that argument with the sad record of what results from a proliferation of guns. As he points out, more guns mean only more violence, and the city already has too much of both. It is important to note that the ban on handguns will stay in effect while the city considers whether to appeal.

 

That is likely, Mr. Fenty announced. The risk here is that an appeal could lead to an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, and a legal principle that now applies only to the residents of the nation's capital would extend to the entire nation. Yet doing nothing wouldn't serve the best interests of the city and its public safety. Nor, for that matter, would it serve the nation's interest to leave this dangerous ruling unchallenged.

 

 

 

[TD.]

Make no mistake, it is a great decision. However, I would feel much better if President Bush were able to make one more appointment to the Supreme Court. Please save us from the mind set of the Washington Post...(whatever happened to just reporting the news and not taking a position on social issues)

[Bruce V 21/28]

I know this is premature and wishful thinking on my part, but, doesn't this have a nice "ring" Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco,_,& explosives http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Walter63a]

This is indeed good news and it will be entertaining to watch what happens as Washington, D.C. appeals to the Supreme Court. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/popcorn.gif

[Chip]

Here's a link to a Wall Street Journal article which outlines the decision well and lists the states that filed breifs in support of the plaintiffs.

WSJ

 

In the upper right corner is a tab to forward the article. I sent it to the Governors office with the asking that if DC takes it to the Supreme Court, would Nevada sign on in support with Texas et al..

 

Doesn't hurt to ask, or strike while the iron is hot.

 

 

[TSMG28]

Chip,

 

I had just read that article and was very pleased to see you include it in this thread. Thanks!

 

Fortunately, my state (Ohio) is already on the amici list. Hopefully we can get a lot of other states added to the list.

[Hawkeye_Joe]

Wouldn't it just be so sweet if they finally overturned the ban and crime statistics actually DROPPED? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Chromebolt]

QUOTE (Hawkeye_Joe @ Mar 14 2007, 03:13 PM)

Wouldn't it just be so sweet if they finally overturned the ban and crime statistics actually DROPPED? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

They have where concealed carry has passed. But the Brady group doesn't care about this inconvenient truth.

[Philupmag]

This is definately a great battle won!

But we must always continue the fight!

Does anyone else get Alan Korwin's Page Nine?

Here's something I copied from the latest from Alan about the DC ruling:

 

"By now you've probably heard that the federal 2nd Circuit Court has overturned the firearms ban in Washington, D.C. It's a glorious decision, accurately reflects reality about the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and vigorously supports the individual right to arms enjoyed by Americans everywhere. It could hardly be better in the battle to defend firearm rights. Details on the court's decision are posted all over the web, try this one from the main sponsor in the case, The Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=502

 

Or see the decision yourself:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common...03/04-7041a.pdf

 

And there was rejoicing throughout the land..., but how about a dose of reality, and what this landmark decision really means --

 

 

(1) This decision won't stop the antis.

 

Anti-rights activists will take heart in the lone dissent, just as you would. They will be no more deterred by this case than you would be if the decision said D.C. residents have no rights at all (as other courts in other areas have said). The ultimate battle for the right to arms will be fought in the court of public opinion, where the news media holds inordinate sway (and slant).

 

 

(2) The news media will ignore the facts and continue to bash your rights.

 

It's business as usual for the anti-gun-rights mainstream media. They're afraid of guns, hate gun owners, don't know what "the good side of guns" means, and will continue filling their reports with anti-rights bigotry, crime and distortion in their battle to disarm the public. If a case works against the public's rights, they'll headline it. For a case like this that accurately reflects history and protects your rights, they'll focus on whining authorities and tell you to prepare for doom in the streets. See the detailed analysis of their trash, below.

 

 

(3) One-third of the court said you do not have an individual right to arms.

 

This defies tons of scholarly work now available that establishes the intent and history of the individual right to keep and bear arms in this country, but that won't stop ideologically driven court characters. The dissent does agree with other anti-rights decisions, and the antis will rely on this. We only "won" by a single vote. They only lost by a single vote.

 

 

(4) It's probably too risky for the antis to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

 

They may ask for a re-hearing from the Second Circuit "en banc," meaning from all the judges, not just the three-judge panel that reached this decision. They will count votes BEFORE they seek an appeal, and if the think they MIGHT win, they will ask, since they have nothing more to lose.

 

But let me be a complete skeptic here for a minute: The contents of this case WILL NOT MATTER at the Supreme Court. Insiders already know where the Justices stand on support of your right to arms. Four men stand four-square in favor of the truth on the issue -- you have an individual right to arms -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The other five are hard lefties, or a mixed bag, and this case of itself (or another one) won't change their philosophy -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy and Stevens.

 

This makes an appeal to the Supremes too risky for the losers at this time, and since we "won," we have no standing to file the appeal. That would change if an "en banc" decision reversed the three-judge panel. Would you risk it if the choice was yours? The Circuits are now strongly split, which the Supremes look for before taking a case. They also estimate where the case will wind up before accepting an appeal. No one really knows what they will do.

 

 

(5) The smart choice for the antis is to wait for 2008 and then destroy gun rights.

 

They are aware of this of course. If the anti-rights forces, largely Democrats though with a good share of Republicans and quislings, take greater control of Congress or the White House, THAT'S the time to finally wipe out this pesky right the people currently have, and have always had. Stack the Court and push through their agenda. Calmer voices on the left are arguing to lay low, do nothing, and wait for the right time to pounce. Fortunately, their radical wing is impatient and pushing for severe actions right away, afraid they may never have a better chance. It's a drama.

 

 

(6) Certain elements of the gun lobby fought AGAINST this case.

 

Gun-rights advocates are not as unified as you might wish they were. Fear, uncertainty and conflicting agendas fought against this successful effort, a success not lead by the usual suspects. The Cato Institute and others lead this successful charge (the case is named after Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer).

 

Within the gun lobby, powerful forces wanted the case dropped, and sought to overturn the D.C. ban in Congress -- which would have made this case moot. The case was delayed and harmed while that activity took place behind the scenes. Orrin Hatch (among many others) tried to derail the case by getting a bill through Congress, but he was unable to do so.

 

 

(7) D.C. is not a state so the precedent is indeed low.

 

That's one reason some power brokers argued against the case -- it doesn't set a national precedent. Fooey. Everyone -- pro and anti -- is too scared of losing to go after a full-blown national decision. That made the D.C. case ideal if you ask me -- get a great decision (which we did), and then argue over how important it is. The sole dissent argued that the Second Amendment doesn't even apply because D.C. is not a state. The majority's reply: fooey; they're Americans like the rest of us (though sometimes the beltway crowd makes you wonder).

 

 

(8) The big legal issue will not be over whether a right to arms exists, it's how far the right goes.

 

A definitive ruling against RKBA would have people rioting out in the streets, and is just too far from the record to support. What's much more likely is some definition on the limits of the right. All rights have limits -- you know, your right to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose, you can't shout Fire! in a crowded theater.

 

The Second Circuit left that door open, and that's where this battle is headed. The "news" media made a point of concocting limits that might apply (see the analysis below). The court said registration might be OK.

 

 

(9) Thanks to this decision, the media will renew their overhype of criminal activity.

 

As soon as Bob Levy at the Cato Institute sent me a note, right after the decision was released, saying in red, "We won!" I wrote back predicting that the media would run stories like "Authorities Brace For Crime Wave," "Local Court Sides With Crooks, Ignores Precedents," and "'Gun Nuts Will Run Wild,' Says Some Police Spokeswoman." Sure enough, they did. If you get email you've already seen the flood -- civil rights groups like NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO and state groups shouting hooray, and every mainstream outlet singing the blues.

 

 

(10) Congress could care less.

 

There will be zero effect on anti-rights proposals for gun owners from the Democrat-controlled Congress (main Dem gun-ban plan summarized here:)

http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNine-27.htm

 

If anything, they will step up their efforts to counter the tidal wave of court and scholarly support for your right to self defense, personal safety, crime control, counterbalance to government, self sufficiency, terrorism deterrence (see Sudden Jihadi Syndrome below), sport, fun, recreation, competition, and all the other good things guns represent that government, on principle, prefers to deny.

 

If ever there was a motivator to join the rights groups locally and nationally, and to do something, anything, to help preserve traditional America and your gun rights, this is it.

 

Links for national groups:

http://www.gunlaws.com/links/us_gunlaw_groups.html

 

The Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/

 

Easy ways to have fun while getting active:

http://www.gunlaws.com/Tactics%20That%20Work.htm

 

 

THE BIG Q:(11) Now that D.C. residents can have guns at home, how will they get them?

 

Don't count on gun stores opening in the nation's capitol any time soon. And it's been illegal to buy a handgun outside your home state of residence since 1968 (under the Gun Control Act). Will nearby Virginia and Maryland gun stores sell sidearms to people whose ID says Washington, D.C.? It's anyone's guess, and the law, as near as I can tell, is not real clear on the point. Would you risk your FFL to sell to some decent-looking individual whose rights are now reaffirmed by some court somewhere out of state? How about to some sleazy-looking character in rags?

 

So D.C. residents now have (pending appeals, if any, I suppose) the right to keep a loaded sidearm at home, for personal safety, crime deterrence and self defense, but they have no predictable way of getting one. How's that for a fine mess of stew.

 

And remember, this ruling has no impact whatsoever on the thousands of vicious armed criminals and drug gangs running free, who are unaffected by and could care less about the 1976 ban or this case. All they have to care about now, maybe, is that their victims may not be as defenseless as they have been for so many years. Now THERE'S a deterrent."

 

Phil

 

 

[frets24]

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/hail.gif Wow! Thank you for the well written and extremly informative overview of this decision. there will certianly be ripple effects and the ever present law of unintended consequences coming from this case. I think there are alot of folks who are really anxious to see how this all plays out over the next several years , pro and con. I for one hope that this may be the foot in the door to our regaining some of our all to easily given up rights. If we as gun owners and enthusiists don't work to retain our rights, who will? It seems we had a bone thrown to us in this instance and it is up to us to take it and run with it, collectively and individually. my representatives get hand written letters several times a year...do yours?

[bug]

Philup, welcome to this place and thank you. I very much enjoyed your excellent post.

 

Bob D

[Norm]

QUOTE

Remember, folks, the whole antigun movement is headquartered in Washington. You can be sure they are totally unhinged. The Washingtonn Post editorial is only the first manifestation of this. They are going bananas over it. We need a few courageous D.C. residents to push them over the edge...goad them to force a foolish reaction...stir up a little publicity...just when the Democrats want to put the whole firearms issue way on the back burner until after the elections; right when Hillary is working so hard to build her phony middle-of-the-road political personna. She is a hard core firearms prohibitionist, and all this has exploded in her very back yard at the worst possible time.

 

Wouldn't be great to this sign in front of a building right next to HCI headquarters! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/mbsennett1/y_z_frogstar_liquor-guns-ammo.jpg

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif

[Philupmag]

Thanks PhilOhio,

 

Alan Korwin's Page Nine is always informative and inspiring to read.

gunlaws.com to subscribe.

 

For some reason I thought that due to the interstate commerce laws only intrastate gun sales were legal.

 

Phil

[Philupmag]

That's good to know, thanks PhilO.

 

So I can go to a gun show in AZ and buy a HK 91 from someone there, sweet.

 

And Amen, we're all hoping they screw up and the 2nd finally goes to the Supreme Court; it will unite every gun owner. Like to see the lamestream media squash that.

 

Phil

[Mohawk]

It's a great decision locally & I agree with PhilOhio, that the liberals could be between a rock & a hard place, but don't count your chickens before they have hatched. GWB is the president who called your constitution "a damned piece of paper" when it got in his way. The powers that be (TPTB) would also like to see the whole US citizenry dis-armed, but the only way they can do that is to get a new supreme court ruling that suits their needs. This could be a 911 preparation for the NRA by TPTB, if this decision was unexpected, what would happen if an appeal got to the supreme court & they make an "unexpected" decision ?????

 

Don't get blinded by the "good news" & keep your eyes open !

[dcbryan1]

QUOTE (Bruce V 21/28 @ Mar 10 2007, 10:56 PM)

I know this is premature and wishful thinking on my part, but, doesn't this have a nice "ring" Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco,_,& explosives http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

"BATE"---phonetically, sounds VERY appropriate.

[Mohawk]

Well PhilOhio, I hope those "good" men of the supreme court do "the right thing" & uphold the second amendment if it ever gets that far. Is there a time limit on how long they have to make an appeal ?