Skip to comments.
DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law
How Appealing Blog ^
| 03/08/2007
| Howard Bashman
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
"Since the DC District Court cited US Supreme Court precedent..."They cited Miller?
Hell, the 9th Circuit cited Miller in Silveira v Lockyer. I believe the 5th Circuit in Emerson cited Miller. Evereyone cites Miller as supporting their decision.
To: Jim Verdolini
You have that right.
ALL amendments, once ratified, become part of the Constitution as if written there in the beginning. The "Incorporation Doctrine," on the other hand, was invented in the 20th century by Justices who used the 14th Amendment to apply to the states parts of the Bill of Rights which, on their faces applied only to "Congress."
John / Billybob
To: Jim Verdolini
It was not the intent of the founders to force the states to apply the federal bill of rights. Yes. It was.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. St. George Tucker. 1803
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it,this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. William Rawle 1829.
383
posted on
03/09/2007 12:21:27 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: cryptical
Now, if SCOTUS will take the case and affirm...
384
posted on
03/09/2007 12:21:35 PM PST
by
lugsoul
(Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
To: robertpaulsen
You might want to go read the decision before you make any more stupid remarks.
Here's the pdf.
385
posted on
03/09/2007 12:22:38 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: robertpaulsen
We gave the Republicans both houses and the Presidency. They didn't do this or anything approaching it.Ron Paul tried and it got nowhere.
386
posted on
03/09/2007 12:22:52 PM PST
by
jmc813
(Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee is like Martin Luther being Pope.)
To: NewJerseyJoe
By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, If you ignore 70 years how years of precendent remain? Dread Scott - Supreme Court ignores x years of precedent.
To: Congressman Billybob
Exactly right. Not sure why this is so hard to understand for so many people.
388
posted on
03/09/2007 12:23:14 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: cryptical; All
This is an arcane, but very important, question for any member of the DC bar who's on this thread and who knows the details of DC appellate procedure: "Does the District of Columbia get to decide whether to appeal this decision on its own or will it be up to US Attorney General Gonzales to decide whether to take an appeal?" If Gonzales gets the final call, the Justice Department has already issued, under AG Ashcroft, an internal opinion that the Second Amendment enforces an existing individual right. Hence, the Justice Department might be able to squash any attempted appeals.
To: basil
It is real. Follow the links at the source and you'll be able to read the full (60 plus pages) opinion.
To: lugsoul
If it's appealed, it goes en banc first. Then, it can be pushed up to the Supremes.
Not sure if there is a way to short that. You'd think with so many Circuits applying different Constitutional standards to their Citizens Rights and legal protections, a crisis would have to be resolved by the SCOTUS.
391
posted on
03/09/2007 12:25:54 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
All you've got is your dictum in your hands. Hehehehe....good one.
before you make any more stupid remarks.
It hasn't stopped him in the past.
L
392
posted on
03/09/2007 12:25:58 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Calling islam a religion is like calling a car a submarine.)
To: cryptical
Woo Woo Woo!
Bump-er-oooooooooooooooooo!
393
posted on
03/09/2007 12:27:37 PM PST
by
roaddog727
(BullS##t does not get bridges built)
To: Lurker
I know. But "no man can be so far lost in the Shadow that he cannot be redeemed".
It's a long shot. But hope costs me nothing... ;-)
394
posted on
03/09/2007 12:27:40 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Yo-Yo
"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."Good news and bad news. The good news: Some future SCOTUS finds that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.
The bad news: "Arms" in the second amendment is defined by SCOTUS as single-shot, muzzle-loaded rifles ... only.
To: Congressman Billybob
Justices who used the 14th Amendment to apply The XIV Amend seems to cover just about everything. When you just read it, it doesn't actually say any of that, but under it much of modern USA came into being.
396
posted on
03/09/2007 12:28:37 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: The KG9 Kid
John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were all on the DC Circuit I believe.
397
posted on
03/09/2007 12:28:44 PM PST
by
NinoFan
(Rudy Lovers: The Rosie O'Donnell Wing of the Republican Party)
To: patton
Since D.C. is under the direct jurisdiction of Congress (see the text of the Constitution), the 2nd Amendment clearly applies to D.C. without any of that "D.C. is a state" argument.
John / Billybob
To: cryptical
"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
What an idiot! Indian Reservations aren't states either but they are a part of America.
399
posted on
03/09/2007 12:29:22 PM PST
by
tobyhill
(The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
To: flashbunny
400
posted on
03/09/2007 12:30:51 PM PST
by
383rr
(Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTOL=SLAVERY)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 1,221-1,238 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson