DC Circuit strikes down DC gun law

How Appealing Blog ^ | 03/08/2007 | Howard Bashman

[cryptical]

Nice...

[domenad]

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

[techcor]

YES!

[Alberta's Child]

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

[The KG9 Kid]

Someone with intestinal fortitude and money needs to openly bring a 'prohibited' weapon into D.C. today with the attitude of 'Go ahead. Charge me'.

[Dead Corpse]

Woo-hoo!!!! A bright point of light... I hope this stands.

[Seruzawa]

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.

So then we could reinstitute slavery in the District of Columbia? LOL! The depths that lefties go to justify their collectivist beliefs are amazing.

[PurpleMan]

Calling Carl Rowan; Mr. Rowan? It's ok now.

[patton]

Woo Hoo!

[longtermmemmory]

BUMP!!!

The silence of the MSM is deafening.

How does former Proseutor Guiliani stand on this ruling?

How does lawyer Hilary Clinton stand on this?

BOTH have stood for this as COLLECTIVE right.


This cases potential is HUGE.

[RockinRight]

And from the DC circuit court, no less.

There's still hope...

[CFC__VRWC]

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).

Is this for real? I just can't imagine any federal court today making a ruling like this. If true, this is a major victory for gun rights.

[evad]

Somebody Pinch me..
this isn't scrappleface ..is it??

[basil]

Oh my goodness! If this proves to be true, as written here, it is quite unbelievable. Here's hoping! Gadzooks! what a victory for the 2A this would be! (I've got to see it in a source I trust before I get too excited, though.)

[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

[TheKidster]

We still have hope!! Nice!

[Yo-Yo]

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."

[ArrogantBustard]

There have been rumblings from Marion Barry (of all people), as well as at least one police chief, that the DC gun ban needed to go away.

[lakeman]

'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.'

This is excellent!! Finally someone gets it. now let me have an m16 to defend myself from a tyrannical government or threat from abroad.