http://drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf
I know it's linked through drudge report, but it's a legit opinion.
Full Version: DC Court Protects 2nd Amendment
QUOTE (AegisDei @ Mar 9 2007, 02:49 PM) 
http://drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf
I know it's linked through drudge report, but it's a legit opinion.
I know it's linked through drudge report, but it's a legit opinion.
Nuts should have been paying more attention to the new posts. I just posted on the same topic myself but I found it on the Cato website.
QUOTE (GunnyR @ Mar 9 2007, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (AegisDei @ Mar 9 2007, 02:49 PM)
http://drudgereport.com/04-7041a.pdf
I know it's linked through drudge report, but it's a legit opinion.
I know it's linked through drudge report, but it's a legit opinion.
Nuts should have been paying more attention to the new posts. I just posted on the same topic myself but I found it on the Cato website.
The more the word gets out, the better! If people start possessing in the city again it will be that much harder to dispossess them if the decision is overturned.
SO... what EXACTLY do all those 75 pages say... in a nutshell? That its OK to carry a gun in DC now? or?!?!?!
(I got to page 10 and had to give up due to time constraints... ( I am just home for lunch, from work...))
(I got to page 10 and had to give up due to time constraints... ( I am just home for lunch, from work...))
Good question, someone give us a summary. 
Whole document available on the 2nm ammendment foundation's website.
B)-->
QUOTE(G O B @ Mar 9 2007, 08:12 PM)
Whole document available on the 2nm ammendment foundation's website.[/quote]
POPs please a link to it.
POPs please a link to it.
QUOTE (IndyArms @ Mar 9 2007, 06:58 PM)
SO... what EXACTLY do all those 75 pages say... in a nutshell? That its OK to carry a gun in DC now? or?!?!?!
(I got to page 10 and had to give up due to time constraints... ( I am just home for lunch, from work...))
(I got to page 10 and had to give up due to time constraints... ( I am just home for lunch, from work...))
as of now, it only means that D.C. has to allow pistols... and they will be appealing the decision.
it will only effect the rest of us if it is appealed to the SCOTUS, and they agree that the 2A is an individual right as opposed to a collective or state's right.
really, in essence, it's just a glimmer of hope (but more of a glimmer than we have seen in years)
keep your fingers crossed that the SCOTUS hears the case and agrees with this appellate court decision.
It says SOOOOO much. It basically addressed every anti-gun argument and quashed it.
=the right to bear arms deserves the same level of protection as the 1st amendment
=individuals have the right to bear arms, not just a collective "people"
=modern firearms are protected, not just muskets
=textual and functional basis for the decision. weapons are protected regardless of status with militia. that is a purpose of weapons, but the right to be armed supercedes and precedes it.
=fuck you democratic, socialist, public policy pushing, pansy pussies
i'm gonna go drink, this deserves a celebration.
QUOTE
"[T]he right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. Hence, the Amendment acknowledges 'the right ... to keep and bear Arms,' a right that pre-existed the Constitution like 'the freedom of speech.' Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government, the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right 'shall not be infringed.'"
=the right to bear arms deserves the same level of protection as the 1st amendment
QUOTE
"The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment's inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty."
=individuals have the right to bear arms, not just a collective "people"
QUOTE
"The modern handgun?and for that matter the rifle and long-barreled shotgun?is undoubtedly quite improved over its colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller's standards. Pistols certainly bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." They are also in "common use" today, and probably far more so than in 1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a "search," the Second Amendment protects the possession of the modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth Amendment standards to thermal imaging search)."
=modern firearms are protected, not just muskets
QUOTE
We think the Second Amendment was similarly structured. The prefatory language announcing the desirability of a wellregulated militia?even bearing in mind the breadth of the concept of a militia is narrower than the guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not protect "the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms," but rather "the right of the people." The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias. Again, we point out that if the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did. We therefore take it as an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms, and that the preservation of the militia was the right's most salient political benefit?and thus the most appropriate to express in a political document
=textual and functional basis for the decision. weapons are protected regardless of status with militia. that is a purpose of weapons, but the right to be armed supercedes and precedes it.
QUOTE
"Of course, the District's virtual ban on handgun ownership is not based on any militia purpose. It is justified solely as a measure to protect public safety. As amici point out, and as D.C. judges are well aware, 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.
It is unnecessary to consider that point, for we think the D.C. laws impermissibly deny Second Amendment rights."
It is unnecessary to consider that point, for we think the D.C. laws impermissibly deny Second Amendment rights."
=fuck you democratic, socialist, public policy pushing, pansy pussies
i'm gonna go drink, this deserves a celebration.
Also, the SCOTUS won't touch this with a 60ft pole. They'd be crazy to. Roberts wants his decisions unanimous, and this will split down the middle 5-4. The actual decision won't create a big issue that needs SCOTUS involvement. Instead, each jurisdiction can choose to follow their own laws and citizens can challenge the constitutionality of them. MAYBE, if other jurisdictions rule opposite to this case, then the SCOTUS will have to become involved. But I don't think there's enough challenges to create enough conflict to raise to SCOTUS level.
But it will be tough to rule against such a sweeping opinion. The majority really did cover every base, and it will forever be cited in any and every 2nd Amendment brief, argument, and decision from here out. Any court that faces a similar challenge will do so knowing that they're fighting an uphill battle. They can either side with this case, or they can try to rule against it, in which case they'll risk having their decision reversed by the SCOTUS. Some stubborn court may try to do that (California), but not likely because then they risk it becoming the supreme law of the land.
But it will be tough to rule against such a sweeping opinion. The majority really did cover every base, and it will forever be cited in any and every 2nd Amendment brief, argument, and decision from here out. Any court that faces a similar challenge will do so knowing that they're fighting an uphill battle. They can either side with this case, or they can try to rule against it, in which case they'll risk having their decision reversed by the SCOTUS. Some stubborn court may try to do that (California), but not likely because then they risk it becoming the supreme law of the land.
This is fantastic! This is it, it means we actually have a chance, this has made my day soooo much. 
HOO-RAH!!!!!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.