DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

[ellery]

Fantastic!!!!!!

[sam_paine]

Wow. A breath of fresh air after the suffocating Marxist arguments at the bar last night!!!!

[Sergio]

yes, Yes, YES!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

It's about time!

[Give Piece A Chance]

I just finished reading the opinion. It is a comprehensive, almost disdainful demolition of the 'collective rights' misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'll give it a more thorough reading this evening/weekend, but it seems like the opinion those of us who read this stuff have been waiting for.

Some other points about standing and whether DC qualifies as a 'state' are also covered, with a rather tortured dissent that perfunctorily accepts the collective rights argument and spends 12 pages arguing that DC is not a state. The dissenter is a Poppa Bush appointee, by the way.

There is now a clear and growing split regarding the 2nd Amendment among federal appellate courts. Should be interesting to see whether the DC Circuit agrees to an en banc review of the case. The bottom line? Stay tuned, this could get much more interesting going into the 2008 elections...

[jmc813]

Even the DU'ers are praising this decision!

[BulletBobCo]

So now they can start selling beebers in DC?

[Yo-Yo]

This is a great ruling, but I do see an issue - I wish this was a ruling against a state's ban on weapons. Why? Because the 2A has not yet been incorporated as applying to the states as most of the BOR has been. DC is a federal district, not a state. It is already clear the BOR applies against the feds.

Keep in mind that even if the SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, that will not automatically nullify all gun control laws.

The 1st amendment protects free speech, but there are limits to that right, including the infamous shouting 'fire' in a crowded building, and banning 'hate speech' (grrrrrr!)

This should allow all gun control laws, such as so-called 'assault weapon bans' to be challenged in court, but each one will have to be individually adjudicated.

[SJackson]

Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg are going to be greatly disappointed to hear this."

YOU RUDY HATERS ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO ATTACK HIM NO MATTER WHAT THREAD YOU'RE ON!!!! YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS!!!!!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!! POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION!!!

I don't hate Rudy. This decision is lies in 180% opposition to Rudy's position on gun control. Rudy has stated withing the last few weeks that local regulation like that overturned here is not only permissable, but advisable.

[oyez]

The left twist themselves every-time facts proves them wrong. By their logic no problem would ever be solved and and the conditions of life always would get worse.

[sam_paine]

Never pictured you as one of the "it's inevitable so lay down and enjoy it" types.

Is congressman billybob actually Clayton Williams in disguise???? =?

[Alas Babylon!]

Never pictured you as one of the "it's inevitable so lay down and enjoy it" types.

Hey, Doof! Reading comprehension is something you never mastered, huh?

CBB is saying that now the SCOTUS will have to take a case deciding once and for all that the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is either an individual right or it is not.

CBB has argued many cases before the Supremes. You?

[SJackson]

The current position of the Justice Department is that the 2nd amendment is a personal right as well.

This case will likely work it's way to the Supreme Court, and the Justice Department may well weigh in on the issue.

But likely not within 2 years. A new administration can take a radically different position. Rudy is the wrong candidate on this issue. Should he gain the nomination, a President Rudy would likely be more amenable than a President Hillary to maintain the status quo.

[AndrewC]

[Uncledave]

You'll like what Volokh has to say:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#1173462824

[Finalapproach29er]

BUMP

[Alas Babylon!]

The drunken and drugged up Kennedy Klan can now pack heat while in D.C.

Well, then so can the rest of us. I'll name my piece the Enraged Drunken/Drugged Northeast Liberal Tamer

More of us, thank God, than them!

[Domandred]

How is this ruling going to effect any process on HR1022 and other federal level legislation? That's what I want to know.

I didn't read the decision but if it ends up being something cannot ban a class of guns but can still ban specific firearms then that doesn't help at all really. Legislation will just come out naming each individual firearm to be banned.

[Dead Corpse]

pg 46

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 Antifederalist 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.