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.
Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too. If the Court does to the Second Amendment what Roe v. Wade did to the sanctity of life, the issue of confiscation will be immediately be on the table. Imagine a majority opinion written by Ginsburg-it would be the death knell of gun rights and the Constitution. The liberals would like nothing better than to test our 'from my cold dead fingers' resolve, if they could get armed BATF agents to do it for them.
The NRA is a very powerful organization but they have a history of appeasement. IMO, they have encouraged the lefties tactic of incrementalism.
The NRA does good things of course but the GOA is less likely to compromise.
Getting this case to the SCOTUS worries me, too.
I think that this is the most likely answer. And I have been a life member for over 20 yrs.
The time is now. If a 'Rat wins the Presidency in '08 - and after amnesty for illegals instantly creates tens of millions of new Democrat voters, it's a distinct possibility - we can expect to see 2 to 3 more Ruth B. Ginsberg clones on the Court in the not-too-distant future. We can't afford to take that risk.
I hadn't realized this was the case, but I think you could argue it either way.
Give the NRA credit, it's doubtful that Al Gore would have been beaten in 2000 if not for the gun issue. That was certainly one of the things that tipped the balance. Democrats who ran that year as vociferous gun grabbers were creamed at the polls, and they've been a lot quieter and more careful ever since.
I'm more familiar with the ins and outs of the pro-life movement, and what that tells me is that in a major cultural war it takes all sorts of different organizations, each doing its own thing, to move the battle forward, from picketing to legislative pressure to education campaigns to billboard trucks driving around the country, to youth groups speaking on campuses.
Maybe both these organizations are right.
ping for later
I don't think the DC court gets overturned very often. They're not exactly the 9th circuit.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter said in a 1998 dissent that "bearing arms" goes beyond a collective right in the context of a well-ordered militia. Combined with the votes of recent conservative appointees, the high court could sweep away draconian laws that don't even allow the possession of a handgun to protect yourself and your family in your home.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803399/posts
Help correct my memory if I have this wrong. Isn't this the same supreme court that upheld gun owners rights against confiscation in LA after Katrina?
All I know of Alito in this regard is his dissent in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); he questioned the Constitutionality of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, but *NOT* with respect to the Second Amendment - he made the case for his dissent ONLY on Commerce Clause grounds. Anything more recent (that is easier to read Alito on)???
Roberts...his two year prior federal judge history does lend much information. Jones v. Flowers was a major letdown, but is not necessarily relevant here.
Regardless, unless the NRA knows something that is not a matter of public record, I see no reason for having not supported this case.
I'll die in the process, but I won't be the only one going down.
That's from page two of the decision. I thought 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.
An even less charitable interpretation is that the NRA depends on the Brady bogeyman and the threat of future laws or confiscations to retain its membership, clout, and contributions. Many might have to find other jobs if a sweeping pro-2A SCOTUS decision were to come down.
Because the NRA doesn't believe we'll win a Supreme Court decision right now. They don't believe the current judges can read English anymore than some Freepers can.
Thanks for the link!
It's been clear for quite some time that the NRA has been heavily infiltrated by Brady Bunchers.
---anybody that trusts the Supreme Court should remember what it did with McCain-Feingold and the First Amendment--
Exactly, and with Stevens on the way out, it would have been better to wait...unless of course we win!
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.