Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I have been following this case for a few months.
Here is a link to the law firm representing Parker (with a long list of past documents):
http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_vs_dc.htm
You did't actually believe that any silly laws ever stopped them? Limosine Liberal Elites are above the law, dontchaknow.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Kennedy driving still has a deadlier record than Kennedy shooting.
Yes, they and all the left as the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Police state of New York says you must bow to several masters to get a gun in NY City. WRONG!!!
I hope it overturns a lot of useless, unconstitutional gun laws.
Actually, if congress is in session, they are quite literally above the law.
Not necessarily. Giuliani has stated that gun control is a state and local concern. In the decision at issue, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Footnote 13 that has not decided and has no reason to decide whther the 2nd Amendment protects citizens from state action to restrict or limit firearm protection, and that the SCOTUS has yet to rule whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment.
BTW, where's the MSM? Thank God for Free Republic!
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'.
Hugh. And series.
Dude, the verdict was issued this morning. They are just getting copies of it, and need at least a few minutes to figure out what happened.
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." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:WOW! Love it, love it, love it. ('Bout damn time, too.)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). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects 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.
The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
I agree with you that the incorporation doctrine is no part of Constitution and is judge made. You do cite how the Constituion is to be amended, but that does not negate the fact that the Constitution, as originally intended, was to grant specific limited powers to the fed gov while all others belong to the states or people.
Are you arguing that the original intent of the Constitution is to apply against the states too?
Bang! Bang! ;o)
And a few more to decide whether to spike it or spin it.
>>Isn't this the first court case stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals? This is absolutely landmark, in that case.<<
Undoubtedly this will be vacated and reheard en banc, where the court will find for the defendants. Still, an interesting verdict.
Um...he has a very solid record of being dramatically on the wrong side of what is now a very bright line. Being a high-profile candidate with that record, it's fair to ask how he reacts to this ruling. Does not bode well.
Yep true. But now they'll have access to multiple 'Assault Weapons' ;-)
Weaving all over D.C. streets while shooting out street lights - or any republicans they happen see :-)
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.