It does go "bang".
(16" total length 12ga 10" barreled "master key" 870 adaptation currently in use by our Forces in Iraq. Fully suitable for use in a militia capacity or for home defense, but totally illegal for civvies to own)
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]
BREAKING NEWS -- Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights: You can access today's lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.
According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
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.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith joined. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented.
Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right based on what she considers to be binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever they entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.
This is a fascinating and groundbreaking ruling that would appear to be a likely candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review if not overturned first by the en banc D.C. Circuit.
Update: "InstaPundit" notes the ruling in this post linking to additional background on the Second Amendment. And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has posts titled "Timetable on Supreme Court Review of the Second Amendment Case, and the Presidential Election" and "D.C. Circuit Accepts Individual Rights View of the Second Amendment," while Orin Kerr has a post titled "DC Circuit Strikes Down DC Gun Law Under the 2nd Amendment."
My coverage of the D.C. Circuit's oral argument appeared here on the afternoon of December 7, 2006. Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman
Try again to describe an "arm" that isn't suitable for the "militia".
So he believes a homeowners association's rules take precedence over a constitutional guarantee of the right to arms? What utter nonsense.
Even if we grant that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is not yet incorporated into the 14th, most state constitutions also guarantee that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. But I wouldn't put it past some of the condo-Nazis in Florida to try something like that. When I lived in FL it seemed like every week or two some condo owner was being threatened with eviction or a financial penalty by the condo association for flying an American flag on his balcony or some other "offense" to the other whiny owners' delicate sensibilities. It only takes giving a little authority to some people to bring out a latent tendency to act like a Nazi storm trooper with a bad attitude.
Omitted from your argument in order to advance your faulty position.
And no you don't understand.
It's true that the lower court's decision was vague. But the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case with the words:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Seems to me that they were looking for specific evidence.
"Are you going to stand on a 17" shotgun being less suitable than a 20" shotgun?"
Of course. The law says not less than 18". 17" is less than 18".
I suppose if the speed limit is 55, you think 56 should be legal? I mean, come on. It's only 56. What's the big deal? Certainly if 55 is legal, 56 should be. Are people going to start dying in droves if they go 56? Do you have proof that 56 is more dangerous than 55?
That's what you sound like. A whiny little child. Take your 5th grade arguments elsewhere.
Yes, it says right in the ruling that robertpaulsen is a complete fruitloop and totally out to lunch. Maybe if you read the decision, you'll see where they do this.
Along with addressing every lame ass Brady talking point you've been spewing the last couple hundred posts.
I've never thought of it that way, but my first impression is that it makes sense. Too bad that most judges and liberals in general are so prejudiced against the RKBA that they would never admit to seeing it that way if their lives depended on it.
Meanwhile, I don't think other milita members will give a rats ass what weapon I bring to fight so long as I show up ready to fight.
That's funny because I found an original copy of the Miller decision that said robertpaulsen had a learning disability.
The state would testify. It's their call and no one elses.
They have the responsibility to form a Militia. If the state says they intend to arm their Militia with 6" shotguns, then the federal government may not infringe on the availability of that weapon. Doing so would infringe on the ability of a state to form their Militia, a violation of the second amendment.
Yep. Such extreme limiting language is laughable. Do the grabbers mean that if in a shooting war you lose your approved weapon you cannot use one of the enemy's if the barrel is less than 18 inches?
Or if it has a magazine for more than ten rounds we can't use it to fight some enemy?
It's craziness.
Damn! You should have argued the Miller case!
That stupid U.S. Supreme Court didn't realize that any weapon is a militia weapon. They said they needed evidence! Can you believe that?
Seems like the courts are in agreement. ;-)
That is like asking for evidence water is wet. It only matters to complete and utter buffoons like you.
And if the state is part of a so called government tyranny does that mean that the militia is also.
The whole business of "the People" being armed independent of any government is to prevent the tyranny of the government.
Your position is baseless and foolhardy.
Bang the gavel, it is so ordered.
It does go "bang".
(16" total length 12ga 10" barreled "master key" 870 adaptation currently in use by our Forces in Iraq. Fully suitable for use in a militia capacity or for home defense, but totally illegal for civvies to own)
Then we should have it.
Looks good for close work.
Can't choose the right weapon if you don't have a choice.
The left is all about choice aren't they?
Ya gotta wonder how the National Guard does it!
You're really not too bright, are you?
Also, various sharp and pointy things I may want to carry around from time to time as fashion statements...
Addressed in the ruling. You still haven't finished that remedial reading course? You'd better get crackin'... instead of smoking it...
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.