[RKV]

Link to opinion: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

[coloradan]

Already posted in breaking news.

[Rakkasan1]

I have a feeling this will be posted even more than the death of Captain America.

(not that that's a bad thing)

[Vaquero]

Please find a poll regarding the DC Gun Ban at the below link. This is a Washington, DC media outlet, and it would be great if the response was an overwhelming "yes".

Please vote and cross-post to your other message boards and networks.

More information on today's DC Court ruling will appear in tonight's Grassroots Alert. Stay tuned.

http://www.wtopnews.com/

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Doesn't the Bill of Rights extend to all Americans, whether or not they reside in a state? Should people in Washington D.C. not have the freedom of speech? (rhetorical).

Though that brings up a question (yet another one): are the rights in the Constitution which don't specifically refer to people in the states applicable to territorial born Americans in the American territories/commonwealths?

[GrandEagle]

Here goes again...
The Constitution is an agreement between the States.
D.C. is not a State - it is a terrorty that the US legislature has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over. Unless specifically called out, the Constitution does not apply to D.C.

(ducking for cover)

[hophead]

"The People" in the US Constitution means exactly what it says. The "people". It means the same throughout the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" does not give "the people" rights, it denys the Government the ability to deny "the people" those "rights" given to us by the Creator.

[pabianice]

Will be ignored by DC pols.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Already posted earlier and at 200+ replies:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798063/posts

[AFPhys]

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.

What an awesome paragraph!

This really sums up the context and the historical argument I've always maintained to be important when I've argued about gun ownership.

[sergeantdave]

The Nancy-boys at the New York Times will have a hissy-fit and probably throw their purses at the cafeteria cook.

[Old Dirty Bastiat]

"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."

Is this the first time a federal court has struck down a gun control law as unconstitutional under the second amendment?!

HISTORIC!!!!

[zeugma]

I looked around a bit and couldn't find a good copy of the opinion in HTML, so I made my own.

For those who prefer html to pdf, see Parker v. D.C.  

Freepmail me with errors if you'd like. I'll be doing more cleanup on it tomorrow.

 Z