[domenad]

Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals? This is absolutely landmark, in that case.

[Alberta's Child]

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

[Dead Corpse]

No. But it is the first in DC.

Kinda makes you wonder if someone finally cracked a history book.

"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

[Congressman Billybob]

No, this is the second case concluding that the Second Amendment grants individual rights. The other came from Texas, and the Supreme Court declined to review that, the Emerson case, against a contrary decision from, IIRC, the ever-popular Ninth Circuit.

At some point, the SC will have to take one of these cases, and answer the very question posed in this case.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Rudy Beats Hillary -- End of Story"

[Colorado Mike]

No the 5th circuit ruled the same a while ago. The DC Circut is unusual in that the legal community considers it the SCOTUS jr.

[gondramB]

>>Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals? This is absolutely landmark, in that case.<<

---

I think there was a previous circuit court decision.
What amazes me is that they cited the supreme court. You'd think that if there was supreme court precedent this issue would not be subject to lower court debate.


>>"[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."<<

>>To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms<<

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I think two other courts have made this decision in the past, not that that has stopped those outside their jurisdiction from trying to interpret "the people" as "the state."

Our greatest threat in regard to the 2nd Amendment is not so much the Judicial branch as it is the Legislative branch of our government. The anti-2nd Amendment crowd know the Constitution guarantees us the right and that the courts are not always their reliable allies, thus they chip away at that right through incremental restrictions on exercising that right (time delays, types of firearm and ammunition, the attempt to barcode ammo, the attempt to implement prohibitive costs through taxing ammo, etc.)

[Texas Federalist]

Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals? This is absolutely landmark, in that case.

Two other courts, the 5th and the 10th have stated that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. What makes this case landmark is that this is the first court that has used the 2nd Amendment to strike down an existing gun law. This is huge!

[2harddrive]

It is at least the SECOND court to rule that the 2nd Amendment confers an Invividual right. A judge in the Texas area ruled similarly about 3-4 years ago, when his divorcing wife tried to use a pre-emptive antigun restaining order against him.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals?

Hardly, but the gun-grabbers have managed to brainwash a lot of 2A defenders into believing there have been no cases upholding the individual right. I would strongly suggest that you READ the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Miller decision, focusing on what the actual holding was, and read up on the circumstances surrounding the fact that its remand to the lower court was never carried out. Gun-grabbers are fond of citing this case as supporting their claims, but in fact it does just the opposite.

[Anti-Bubba182]

They reported this on Brit Hume but did not discuss it much. They showed the Mayor of DC calling the decision an outrage, like he makes any difference in the courts.

If the decision is upheld, it will be huge. People like that crappy Mayor won't be ablle to run roughshod over our gunrights.

[sig226]

The Supreme Court said it in Justice Thomas' opinion in US v. Verdugo - Urquidez, but the remarks were 'dicta.'

[ZULU]

No.

This is the SECOND Federal Court decision that stated that the right ot keep and bear arms is an individual right - in recent times anyway.

[ExSoldier]

Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals?

Well, THIS century, certainly. Even the last century, the last opinion expressed by the USSC that was narowly "on point" happened in the first third of the 20th century. The Miller case.