Posted on 03/13/2007 12:50:35 AM PDT by neverdem
In the D.C. Gun Law Case, a Chance to Affirm the Second Amendment
By Robert A. Levy
Monday, March 12, 2007; A13
Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it looks as though the District of Columbia's 31-year-old gun ban is history. Good riddance.
In a landmark opinion Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower federal court on all counts and concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was brought by six D.C. residents who want to possess functional firearms within their homes for self-defense. Their lawsuit was not about machine guns and assault weapons. They didn't ask for the right to carry guns outside their houses. Parker was about ordinary handguns, in the owner's private residence.
Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a recent Bush appointee. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The court majority stated unequivocally that activities protected by the Second Amendment "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."
Indeed, said the court, "the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government" in 1789.
Fast-forward more than two centuries. Shelly Parker lived in a high-crime neighborhood in the heart of Washington. People on her block were harassed relentlessly by drug dealers and addicts. Parker called the police, time and again, then encouraged her neighbors to do the same. She organized block meetings to discuss the problem. For her audacity, Parker was labeled a troublemaker by the dealers, who threatened her at every opportunity.
One dealer tried to pry his way into her house, repeatedly cursing, then...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
L
This is a key line. It's amazing they actually stated that rights pre-existed the government.
"This is a key line. It's amazing they actually stated that rights pre-existed the government."
Its almost as if they have read the Constitution and DOI!!
This is the Washington Post!!! Sometimes, it's hard to believe my eyes!!
The little attention given this decision on demoncratunderground,save the odd lunatic, supported the decision.
Sure, I believe this is a great step in the right direction...
But...(don't you hate this!)
Like I have said before, it is proper to define the right as "individual"...Some would say that it might be ok or acceptable if the SCOTUS opinioned the right to being a "fundamental" right...And thats where we had better be careful, that in my opinion would not be acceptable to being ruled by the SCOTUS as a "fundamental" right...
Look at what is generally defined as "fundamental" and you'll see where it leaves way to many doors open for further diffusion and infringements later on down the road...
The absolute key to this is to ensure that the opinion is undoubtably held as it has ALWAYS been...
Your right to keep and bear arms is an "inalienable right"!!!
Endowed by YOUR creator...
That is an authority higher than anything else I can think of...
And when you couple this with the attacks upon our moral foundations in this country, you'll see why this argument is like throwing holy water on those who continually attack the moral base in this country...
Knocking off the Second Amendment will be (and has been) a tough battle for them...The irony is that the attackers to this inalienable right will keep that First Amendment around to suit their purposes till we lose the means to effectively defend it...Then it's all over...
It will all be remembered as a really neat experiment for the last 230 some odd years...
All I am really trying to say is be very careful what you wish for by hoping this goes to the SCOTUS...
It ain't a lock up yet...And if it does, and the right is ruled as a "fundamental right", some may initially think this is a good thing, but it won't be...
The court will never (in its current configuration), ever reverse or modify their opinion if it is ruled in this manner...
Either they stick to the "individual right" or uphold the original "inalienable right" that it was written in reference to in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, or its all over...
Again, be careful what you wish for...
Heard the D.C. mayor on NPR this morning (yes, I listen to NPR sometimes) and he was completely unable to articulate any logical reason for a handgun ban. Even the NPR reporter was obviously skeptical. When the mayor tried to claim it helped cut down on violence, the reporter said something like, "But you have one of the most violent cities in the nation."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Of note: Parker herself, and all but one of the other plaintiffs, was denied "standing" before this appeals court. Only Heller was addressed by this verdict - because he was the only one who actually applied for the permit which he knew would not be granted (and was indeed rejected); the others did not apply for the permit because by DC law they would indeed be rejected.
Also frequently misunderstood: the verdict only overturned the laws that forbade issuing permits for home possession only, and that forbade anything other than locked/disassembled storage - and all this only applies to DC.
It was a huge fight to get a surprisingly modest result.
I didn't wish for it. I don't like to tempt fate. The decision hit me out of the blue. I thought SCOTUS had ignored this case already. If it were up to me, then Bush would have appointed two more like Alito and Roberts before the case goes to the SCOTUS.
But the die is cast. FWIW, the decision is the most comprehensive and airtight defense of the Second Amendment as an individual right that I have ever read. If the SCOTUS grants cert, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a unanimous decision for the right of the individual, but then the left never fails to amaze me.
Concur. Particularly so long as Clarence Thomas remains on the court. See, in particular, his dissenting opinion in Small vs. US in which Thomas sided with Scalia and Kennedy.
Wow, thanks for the link, but any court means just what it says.
It gives me more reason to have hope for Anthony Kennedy if they grant cert. Keep your fingers crossed & say your prayers. Stay safe!
That's what I get for not checking the treasonous 'paper of record'. Who'da thunk that about Ginsburg or Souter? It should be easier to sway Kennedy.
Yeah, who'd have thought that...
But if we do get this up to them, I doubt it'll be a unanimous descision...
Who knows what some of those goobers think these days...
I'm not getting warm and fuzzies either way...
Can you imagine Ginsburg later having to chew on a dcision following a claim that *a womans constitutional right to privacy/ an abortion* applies only to those women who are members of the National Guard?
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.