Gun Rights Aren't for District, Judge Rules

The Washington Post ^ | January 15, 2004 | Carol D. Leonnig

[neverdem]

The constitutional right to bear arms doesn't apply to the District of Columbia's residents, a federal judge ruled yesterday in rejecting the claim of several city residents who contended that a 1976 city law banning the possession of guns left them unfairly vulnerable.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said he dismissed the lawsuit, led by taxicab commissioner and activist Sandra Seegars, after determining that the District was a "uniquely designed governmental entity" and that the founders were not considering the city when they wrote the Constitution's Second Amendment allowing state militias to take up arms against the federal government.

Walton found that all but one of the District residents suing the city and the federal government did not have a legitimate reason to file a federal suit about their constitutional rights because they didn't own a gun nor had they tried to register one. For the one resident who did own a shotgun, Gardine Hailes, the judge ruled that a history of court decisions led him to conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the city that is the home of the federal government.

[Double Tap]

Bump for later

[djf]

Yup. And this case is nothing new in jurisprudence. The USSC said the same thing in Downes V Bidwell, 182 US 244, and Hooven, Evatt. 324 US 652.
"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."

[Dr.Zoidberg]

If there was an organized and determined effort, I would be there without hesitation. I'm not fool enough to go it alone and I'm not asking anyone else to do what I won't.

It would take planning and determination, but it would work.

[gitmo]

Walton said the Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to carry weapons, but that it conferred that right to state militias as "protectors of the state . . . from the potential of an oppressive" federal government.

... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[neverdem]

Willing to bet the good judge has a weapon in his home?

Me, no thank you. Do you remember that hypocrite Carl Rowan who was always blabbing for gun control, and when he shot a burglar with a throw away he got from his son, a fed LEO, IIRC?

[neverdem]

Thanks for the Jeffersonian quotes.

[relee]

Those people who live in the D.C. area who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment should arm themselves and march on the courthouse. They should demand that their rights be recognized or that the police come and try to disarm them.

Uh, you first OK?

I think it will be ok, as long as you drive to the courthouse in a tractor.

[FreedomCalls]

It is very clear, in the U.S.Constitution, that Congress shall decide such matters.

And the Second Amendment takes from Congress any power to issue legislation affecting someone's ability to "keep and bear arms." Therefore all gun control legislation in the District is null and void.

[Lester Moore]

I think we are basically hosed as far as any real liberty is concerned and I hold no illusions about regaining it or really scaling back government authority without resorting to some large-scale unpleasantness. The only thing is, how much are we prepared to lose? Do we value liberty above all else? I think for most people, the answer is clear.

They took The Jerry Springer Show off the air here & boy am I pissed.

What were you saying?

[FreedomCalls]

"Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority."

Those actions which the Constitution reserved to the states and forbade to Congress are given to Congress when Congress exercises their control over lands, enclaves, territories and possessions under their exclusive legislative authority since there is no state entity to legislate, but those powers that the Constitution forbids to Congress or to the states (such as the power to limit speech, religion, or to trial by jury) are still forbidden to Congress even in those areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority. The Second Amendment in particular not only limits the power of Congress to act to restrict the bearing or possession of arms, it seemingly puts those powers off limits to all levels of government -- "... shall not be infringed."

[djf]

If you have a court cite that says as much, I'll be glad to read it. I'm not in favor of what I quoted, in fact I am opposed to any part of the country being extra-constitutional, but that was what the courts said, and is the basis for alot of what we perceive to be unconstitutional acts of Congress.

[goldstategop]

Its a ruling consistent with the spirit of the 1800's Organic Acts that stripped blacks of self government in D.C til the mid 70s for racist reasons. Now its a liberal federal judge who wants to keep D.C's majority black population disarmed so they don't get any ideas about leaving the Liberal Plantation. Keep em dependent on government.

[SevenDaysInMay]

No judge, SCOTUS, Congress, or president has any lawful authority to void our RATIFIED CONSTITUTION. To so order is to become outlaws themselves.

Our Bill of Rights shall be their downfall.

America's free citizens don't need our governments' bullies permission.

This tyranny is as serious as a child's open grave.

[chmst]

ping

[FreedomCalls]

If you have a court cite that says as much, I'll be glad to read it.

Your own cite DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) gives this:

The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. ... If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.

It may be added in this connection, that to put at rest all doubts regarding the applicability of the Constitution to the District of Columbia, Congress by the act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. 419, 426, chap. 62, 34), specifically extended the Constitution and laws of the United States to this District.

[BenR2]

As has been suggested before by others, this judge should be forced to take his own medicine and made to walk alone down one of D.C.'s darkest alleys some night -- unarmed -- to see how it feels.

[NYTexan]

....and this is code for?......