Posted on 05/17/2016 1:40:11 PM PDT by NRx
A federal judge has ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is likely unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.
In imposing a preliminary injunction pending further litigation, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reignited a running battle over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts where three different judges have now weighed in with varying conclusions.
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case that established a constitutional right to keep firearms in one’s home.
Leon said that the right applies both inside and outside the home.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, d’uh!
Finally we have found a judge who actually read the 2nd Amendment. Good news!
So tomorrow everyone in DC can conceal carry? Because when a judge rules for same sex marriage the next day they get married.
Living in DC should be a good enough reason.
If you live in the urban neighbors of DC, you have good cause to carry a gun.
A judge who understands what “shall not be infringed” means.
Reading the Constitution is easy; understanding some of the nuances in the wording can be tricky. Think of trying to understand the Old Testament without a good concordance, you could understand 97%, but that other 3% is going to get you. Usually it’s best to let the author explain the misunderstanding. With the Old Testament it can be a bit difficult; with the Constitution it’s possible through the Federalist Papers. I’m not going into detail of what the Federalist Papers are, that’s your assignment.
Although the Federalist Papers were all signed “Publius”, historians have determined they were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Federalist 29, attributed to Alexander Hamilton, was titled “Concerning the Militia”. Of particular interest is this passage:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
It would appear to me, in this one passage, that the liberal argument of ‘hunting rifles’ is pure bovine excrement. Here one of the authors of the Constitution expressly states that the militia can defend the state, but the citizens discipline and the use of arm stand ready to defend their own right and those of their fellow-citizens.
Game-Set-Match.
Legal ‘wack-o-mole’.
WTF Liberals are so fascist!!
>So tomorrow everyone in DC can conceal carry? Because when a judge rules for same sex marriage the next day they get married.
You see, G.M. is/was a suppressed right, enshrined in the Constitution, while the 2nd A. Rights...you can really hurt someone, so that’s different /s
“Finally we have found a judge who actually read the 2nd Amendment.”
Exactly what is the second amendment for?
Hunting? No.
Personal protection? No.
Defending one’s personal property? In a way yes.
The second amendment is for defense of country against enemies
foreign and domestic. It’s also meant to give the people
power over government.
I’d say there is a good argument that small arms may be
regulated by the state and even banned. On the other hand
it could be deemed ones civil duty to arm themselves with
military standard issue arms (anything one man can carry).
It could even go as far as a mandate.
“good reason?”
The Obama, liberals and the northeastern communist block USA
is all the reason we need.
“WTF Liberals are so fascist!!”
Their goal is to send as many liberal a-holes from Nerd York
to infect Texas by making it impossible to live in it’s
stink hole. It’s to catalyze a liberal swarm of pestilence
across the country. Soon the country will be up to it’s
eyeballs of fools saying “that’s not how we did it up north”.
The New Yorkers who are liberal are mainly coming to New Hampshire to drown out the free state movement. Them and some folks from California, Massachusetts, and Maine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.