Will The New ruling By the D.C. Circuit court save the S-12

[TacticalResponse 0]

This week the washington D.C. circuit court of appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an Individual right and concluded that the district of Columbia's ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. This case will now head for the Supreme Court to be heard by the Justices.

 

 

If upheld by the Supreme Court. The ownership of Assault weapons would be considered part of our second Amendment right's and would throw a monkey wrench in the democratic plan for H.R. 1022 the new assault weapons bill.

 

 

The sporting purposes clause of the 1968 Gun Control Act would be void. This could potentially render all Federal gun laws currently on the books as illegal.

 

 

Yes, we would be able to order military grade S-12's from Russia and use drum mags if we so desired.

 

 

Here is the website from the NRA on the event, so that everyone can look it up and read about the court ruling.

 

 

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2724

 

This court decision is considered to be the most important ruling for Second Amendment right's in over 70 years.

Edited March 10, 2007 by TacticalResponse

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

Fantastic news! Thanks so much for posting! This will have far reaching import for all gun owners.

[TacticalResponse 0]

Fantastic news! Thanks so much for posting! This will have far reaching import for all gun owners.

 

 

If the Supreme Court upholds the D.C. circuit court of appeals ruling. If it does, liberals will probably lose their minds.

[aurbis 1]

I read the article, but in what way are previous gun laws affected? I'm not seeing the connection...

[Grim42 0]

 

Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight, get down tonight...

[davidmdraege 0]

I read the article, but in what way are previous gun laws affected? I'm not seeing the connection...

 

I've read the article too and agree that people aren't getting the distinctions. The ruling was against DC saying that owing a gun for home defense wasn't a valid reason for having the gun. It does not say that the government can't regulate what types of firearms are available to the general public. That issue was put before the Supreme Court back in the infamous Mitchell case that the liberals always point to.

 

In that case, the court stated that that ownership of a sawed off shotgun was not guranteed bucause it didn't meet a military need and thus the government did have the authority to regulate it.

 

Kind of weird that the liberals use a ruling pointing out that a firearm should meet a military purpose when they try to regulate firearms. They kind of make people forget that part of the ruling and remember that the Supreme Court said that the government could regulate firearms.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Shootin's Fun

[Grim42 0]

I read the article, but in what way are previous gun laws affected? I'm not seeing the connection...

 

The ruling states that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual's right to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed.

 

Quote:

 

"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 Anti-federalist 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."

 

[aurbis 1]

I read that once before, but I still do not see anything that paragraph dealing with previous gun regulations and the removal of all previous laws.

[Grim42 0]

I read that once before, but I still do not see anything that paragraph dealing with previous gun regulations and the removal of all previous laws.

 

Read that last line again... There is also a part in the full ruling (this is just the summary) stating some very good things about the plain language of the second amendment. All gun laws are based on the idea that the second amendment applies to only the states rights to regulate a militia and not (unlike all the other amendments) to the individual. The supreme court ruling in the 30's on the sawed off shotgun explicately states that it was not shown any evidence either for nor against the military use of the shotgun and based on the fact that the plaintiff was not able to provide any evidence to support his complaint, ruled against him. He of course was dead by then (they took away his form of personal defence) and they ruled in favor of some interstate commerse law. This in no way was a definate ruling eitherway and the Supreme Court has avoided the subject since. Of couse if it were a machinegun, by their own logic it would have been perfectly legal to own and travel across state lines with. The object in question being a shotgun, the shotgun was at the time being challenged as a lawful use in combat by the rest of the world for it's devistating use by us in WW1. That ruling was still from the point of view that the government had a limited right to regulate arms, but not overtly against the individuals rights. This new ruling is quite explicate on who has the right to bare arms and who doesn't have the right to regulate. "Shall not be infringed"

 

 

*edited to finish thought*

Edited March 10, 2007 by Grim

[flydutch 2]

This court decision is considered to be the most important ruling for Second Amendment right's in over 70 years.

 

And it can, and probably will, be appealed. If SCOTUS gets it, there's no guarantee which way it will go.

[AegisDei 2]

This week the washington D.C. circuit court of appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an Individual right and concluded that the district of Columbia's ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. This case will now head for the Supreme Court to be heard by the Justices.

 

 

If upheld by the Supreme Court. The ownership of Assault weapons would be considered part of our second Amendment right's and would throw a monkey wrench in the democratic plan for H.R. 1022 the new assault weapons bill.

 

 

The sporting purposes clause of the 1968 Gun Control Act would be void. This could potentially render all Federal gun laws currently on the books as illegal.

 

 

Yes, we would be able to order military grade S-12's from Russia and use drum mags if we so desired.

As I explained previously, I'd bet that the SCOTUS won't touch it. You conjecture that it will head to the SCOTUS, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. Additionally, it could be a disaster if it hit the SCOTUS. They can quickly overturn such an overbroad and sweeping opinion. This is an example of conservative judicial activism that the SCOTUS would likely not take kindly to.

 

Even if it was upheld by the SCOTUS, it has never been the case that merely because a right can't be infringed means that it can't be curtailed. The 1st Amendment is the most zealously protected, and there are tons of laws against it. It even says "Congress shall make no law." Yet they do. There is a balance that must be considered with upholding any law.

 

Other gun laws will still be constitutional until specifically challenged and overruled. For now everything is the same except gunowners have taken the first step in the right direction down a VERY long road. Getting overly excited and assuming that we will get unlimited liberty will scare courts and congress into harsh reactions.

[pogy 5]

Before the SCOTUS, it has to go back to the full bench of the D.C. Court of Appeals. This ruling was from a three judge panel. The next step would be for the whole bench to hear it, then the appeal would be to the Supreme Court.

[DaGroaner 2]

Hopefully this will also end my state's ban on Class III weapons and suppressors.

[uzitiger 193]

While the ruling is a great step in recovering our lost gun rights the anti gun Nazis will find other ways to further erode our rights. I hope we have enough votes in the Supreme Court to uphold that decision and maybe expand upon it to declare the infringements on our Second Amendment unconstitutional.

 

This is why we need to vote for a pro gun president so we don't get Eva Braun's reincarnation, Hitlery Clinton in the White House. The judges she'll appoint will make that ACLU subversive Ruth Bader (Meinhoff) Ginsburgh look mild. Remember the dark years we had during the Clinton years, Clinton II will be a lot worse and we could see more Waco style atrocities against innocent gun owners by a more vicious BATFE.

[kmoore 3]

While it's a step in the right direction, it will not undo many legislation by itself. City bans could all go away, but I believe the opinions even stated that it was the complete ban that was unconstitutional, but that some preventions were still warranted. Types of weapons, criminal ownership, mentally ill, etc are ok to control....

 

But, IF it goes thru, then it might at least get the momentum back on our side. Embolden others to fight existing laws.

[topmaul 42]

Yes K as usual your are right, the the thing is that it can be sited in future courts and sets the stage for a lot more litigation, in which the NRA or other Gun special interest groups to challenge other laws all over the country. I would say it is more than one small step, a giant leap and can have far reaching ramifications.

[G O B 3,516]

This decision is a bolt from the blue. I think it's true affect is to give us hope. The poles are running verry favorible-as much as 85% FAVORABLE.

We need to keep the pressure on our politicians. A good politician has never found an issue they can't waffle on-if changing positions smells like votes.

[Grim42 0]

After reading the full ruling again, I believe if this were a SCOTUS ruling, it would come down to what would be defined as arms "in common use of the day". Cannons, altillary and weapons of mass destruction are already out as being considered arms, but one could easily argue that what the average infantry personel could be considered armed with what is considered in common use. This totally flies in the face of any "assault" weapon ban concept as the purpose of an individual having the right to keep and bare arms is putting these sort of weapons in the general publics hands. One part I found interesting is, they suggested that Congress couldn't make a law taking away your guns but, on signing up for Selective Service, Congress could make it manditory that you own a gun. Unfortunately, this does not by itself save the Saiga 12 with a 20rd mag from being defined as a DD and therefor declassifying it as an arm. The definition of arm should be defined broadly and quickly before the gun-grabbing nuts and their twisted minds manage to get to it first.