Posted on 03/19/2007 2:25:43 PM PDT by AZRepublican
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals has thrown out the District of Columbia's gun ban, citing an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.
Which means residents of D.C. may soon no longer need to result to wearing whistles to thwart off violent attacks.
The suit was filed by legal whiz (and Agitator reader) Alan Gura, and includes a few of my former colleagues at Cato, including the brilliant Bob Levy. Congratulations are in order all around. This is a huge ruling, one that could well facilitate a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gene Healy has more details. His comment about the NRA is worth repeating. The organization has fought this suit every step of the way. The question is, why?
The NRA has said it's because they don't think the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is right for a Second Amendment case. Maybe. But it is the most conservative court we've had in at least a generation. A less charitable explanation for the NRA's opposition may be that the organization didn't want a suit to go forward that didn't include its name.
Of course, now that the case has made history (I don't think that's an exaggeration), the organization has to explain to its members not only why the group wasn't behind the most important Second Amendment victory in a long, long time, but why they actively opposed it each step of the way.
That's as much of a stretch as saying the 2nd amendment is only for hunting
The machinegun ban portion of that bill was inserted by Charlie Rangel and William Hughes in a questionable voice vote when most of the chamber had gone home for the night. It wasn't a NRA compromise, it was Democrat abuse of procedure.
AZRepublican wrote that he read the decision when he called it terrible on one of my earlier threads. This is just more slander against the NRA.
The NRA has made a lot of mistakes worthy of criticisum. But to slander the US Constitutions clear intent protect our individual right to keep & bear arms.. -- To say that only States can protect that right. -- that sticks in my craw.
AZRepublican insists:
"-- It's a militia amendment, not a personal guarantee. Rights and liberties were left with the people to define and protect under their own constitutions...national govt had no power over personal liberties.
I think it is a terribly flawed decision. It makes Roe v. Wade almost respectable. --"
Posted by AZRepublican to neverdem On News/Activism ^ 03/16/2007 7:01:44 PM PDT
The machinegun ban portion of that bill was inserted by Charlie Rangel and William Hughes in a questionable voice vote when most of the chamber had gone home for the night. It wasn't a NRA compromise, it was Democrat abuse of procedure.
Their key assertion, of which they offer no supporting documentation: "When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception."
This wasn't brought out by the "Agitator" blogging quoted in the original posting, nor was it brought out that the NRA also filed its Jordan lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds, and also on civil rights law.
From page 73 of the June 2003 issue of the American Rifleman:
District Residents Demand Second Amendment RightsI think this Agitator piece is simply wrong to condemn the NRA as "[t]he organization has fought this suit every step of the way"; it clearly did not do that. The Parker lawyers have asserted that the NRA tried to in some manner sabotage the case by bringing in more issues than just Second Amendment issues, but to cast that as more than simply lawyers having different opinions as to the strongest way to present a case is wrong in my opinion. If the NRA didn't support the case I don't think that they would have filed their amicus brief.NRA is actively supporting a lawsuit filed by five Washington, D.C., residents who seek to regain their Second Amendment rights, including the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.
Commenting on the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said, "The core of any substantive policy designed to reduce violent crime ought to be on disarming criminals. The current District strategy is senseless. Law-abiding residents have to contend with a draconian law that leaves them defenseless when confronted with a violent criminal. In our nation's capital, the criminal has the advantage over the victim. That is unacceptable, and it is deplorable."
Plaintiff Absalom Jordan, Jr., who like all his fellow plaintiffs is eligible to own a firearm under federal statute, echoed similar sentiments: "Law enforcement is overworked and by definition, arrive after the crime has been committed when it's too late. Why can't I have the right to protect my family? The Mayor and all the VIPs on Capitol Hill get abundant protection from their respective security details... and at taxpayer expense! Why are their lives more valuable than those of my children? All I want is a means to protect my family, should the need arise."
The lawsuit also raises Fifth Amendment concerns, taking the position that District law deprives residents of liberty and property by authorizing them to possess pistols on the condition that they are registered, but simultaneously prohibiting them from registering those same pistols [see D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)].
The complaint further cites The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that provides in part: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory... the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens... ." This was intended to protect the same rights as its counterpart, the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 which guaranteed the right "to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [estate], including the constitutional right to bear arms."
Nonsense. The NRA, to which I have never given a penny, is constantly peppering me with expensive glossy literature touting what great fun it is for women to go hunting. Their website is heavily weighted toward sport and social aspects of gun use.
Over the years, I've lost track of how many times I've heard NRA spokespeople saying "We don't need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have." Really? We need to enforce all the unconstitutional gun laws that are on the books? The huge danger of promoting "fun" and "sport" as the primary reasons one would want to own a gun is that it makes some gun owners as well as many non-gun owners reason that it's no big deal to require registration of potentially dangerous recreational equipment, and since guns are primarily recreational equipment . . . Any gun message that doesn't put defending ourselves from our government front and center is a dangerous message.
The NRA is also busy running the silly Eddie Eagle programs in schools, brainwashing kids from a very early age that guns are very very very dangerous things and if you ever see one, you must immediately run and tell and adult. Don't even think about touching it, 'cause you never can tell when a gun might just go off. Not sure if it's real or a toy? -- don't try to find out, just run, run, tell an adult! Hard to tell at what age the NRA thinks it might be appropriate to start reversing that message, since they're not exactly loudly lobbying to make instruction in USING guns part of the regular school curriculum.
I know a wolf in sheep's clothing when I see one.
How do you explain the NRA's silence re the Lautenberg Abomination?
Back in 1986, I don't think the NRA had anything near the communications network it has now. Even if the NRA had immediately mobilized to stop the FOPA as soon as the machine-gun ban was added to it, what would it have been able to do before the amended bill was passed?
To be sure, I'm not sure the NRA would have been able to kill the Lautenberg Abomination either. On that one, though, it didn't even try.
The case has taken so long, no one could foresee the changes in the courts.
I think it time we pushed this to the limits.
The NRA needs issues to keep the $$ flowing. I'm not so sure they're looking for solutions anymore.
But ironically, they have no objection to citizens being required to produce "papers" or be arrested, if they are found to be carrying a gun. For as long as I can remember, the NRA has supported the concept of states requiring permits for concealed carry.
You're on the wrong website. Go to the NRA-ILA website for the legislative news.
Anyone complaining they have to walk to the garbage can and throw a couple of letters away isn't going to watch my back when the going really gets rough.
The NRA is working to reverse forty years of anti-gun legislation. The CCW laws are a step in that direction. Ideally, the Vermont and Alaskan laws are the final goal.
Back in 1986, I don't think the NRA had anything near the communications network it has now. Even if the NRA had immediately mobilized to stop the FOPA as soon as the machine-gun ban was added to it, what would it have been able to do before the amended bill was passed?
Sort of the Jesse Jackoff of the right, huh? Interesting thought.
I would say stay away from the Supreme Court also.
I'm with the NRA on this one.
As for the Eddie Eagle program. It doesn't teach kids that guns might go off accidentally, that's hogwash. And in case you don't realize it guns in the wrong or untrained hands are very dangerous. Kids need to know what they will do.
The program teaches children that if they find a gun in an unsupervised situation, they should: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult. What the hell is wrong with that?
How much time elapsed between the voice vote on the amendment and the bill's signing into law? Even if the NRA had sent out postcards on the day after the machine-gun garbage was added to the bill, would people have actually received them before the bill was signed?
The Lautenberg Abomination was much less forgivable. The GOA had no trouble finding out about the bill before it passed, and there is plenty of stuff in the Lautenberg Abomination that can be opposed without being branded a zealot (e.g. the fact that a person's RKBA can be denied indefinitely without so much as an allegation--much less evidence--that they've done anything criminal). I found the NRA's silence on the Lautenberg Abomination puzzling and alarming.
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.