D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!
69charger
Posts: 1,045
D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun
Friday, March 09, 2007
This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."
In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:
"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 Anti-federalist 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."
Finally they get something right!!! Yay!
Friday, March 09, 2007
This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."
In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:
"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 Anti-federalist 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."
Finally they get something right!!! Yay!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
~Ron Burgundy
oh gees, fry me an egg and slap my red-headed kids,... license!
~Ron Burgundy
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I was driving home from the Cubs spring training game today and this dude on a motorcycle next to me had a hand gun sticking out of the back of his pants as he drove down the highway.
I mean, I understand that he probably has a tiny penis but isn't that supposed to be concealed?
Now, I'm not completely "anti-gun" but there was something unsettling about seeing a semi-automatic hand gun sticking out like that in broad daylight.
I don't know about how the laws are interpreted there, but if someone is carrying, it needs to be concealed. As soon as it isn't, it can be considered brandishing. The guy sounds like a dumbass. If he just had it sticking down the back of his pants, chances are he didn't actually have a concealed carry permit, and was just a gangsta.
And... when this tyrannical government with it's intrusive tactics does decide to oppress us... tey only need to send one cop to my house because I don't have any guns. They will send the fucking SWAT Teams to houses where they KNOW there are guns and go Koresh on their asses. That confuses me.
Hail, Hail!!!
VERY good point!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We’re also left with the conclusion that civilians should be allowed to carry and own firearms of all types and that government shall not be allowed to take away that right. As Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Of course, what do they mean by ‘arms’? There are some libertarians who insist that this implies that we should be able to own anything we wish up to and including nuclear weapons. I left this for the conclusion to show that liberty-minded individuals can be just as self-serving when they read the constitution. Arms is the only word that the Founders used that was truly vague, even when viewed through the light of historical perspective. Artillery and bombs were of course known to exist by then, and were also referred to as ‘arms’. However, ‘Keep and Bear’ would be the key phrases here. I’m a strong guy, but I’d be hard-pressed to bear even a four-pounder cannon. And, I’m almost positive I wouldn’t be able to move more than 5 yards with it strapped to my back, if my knees didn’t collapse with weight in the first place.
Nope, very hard to bear something much bigger than a small arm (firearm). Not to mention that artillery and explosives were not (and for the most part still aren’t) individual weapons at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They are instead thought of as force multipliers and methods of projection of power. Even though there are individuals at the trigger, fuse, or button, they aren’t designed to protect the individual or harm another individual, but to protect and likewise damage larger bodies of men from the squad on up. Thus even though mortars, RPG’s, etc can be born and fired by individuals they aren’t really ‘individual weapons’. Besides, as seen by the Patrick Henry quote and the writings of others’, the Framers clearly meant firearms when discussing individual weapons.
http://www.indiancowboy.net/blog/?p=224
Get training and expect to pay $400 to $700 for a reliable personal defense weapon.
This is my choice...
http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php
is this because you cant get a girlfriend?
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=12901097
well, that's me and her. what is the big deal about owning a gun man? you scared im going to try and shoot you or something?
~Ron Burgundy
because you kill on average 5 kids under the age of 12 per week in your country with them.
so i'm not scared you're going to shoot me as you wouldnt get a gun into Scotland, but i'm scared your gun might kill someone a lot more innocent
that is a pretty strong implication there buddy. if i bought a gun, and trained to get a concealed weapons license,... i guarantee that number goes down by 99.9%.
i see your point, though,...
~Ron Burgundy
This is the most sensible post I've heard from you yet. By corollary, why does the "right to bear arms" assumed to include all types of guns ??
"reliable personal defence weapon" cute name, sounds like a lot for a baseball bat,
ON the subject of what teh Founding Fathers meant, do you really think they meant the types of guns that are around today, and for the ongoing carnage in your society from gun crime, I mean seriously ?? And was it possibly a rash inclusion, inspired by the recent military victory which secured independence ?? What is so sacred about a constitution ??
i think you just won the olympic gold medal for most acrobatic stretch of constitutional interpretation. that entire distinction is based upon an interpretation of the word "bear" which is debatable. and there are a LOT of parts of the constitution that are very vague. to say that they CLEARLY meant guns is ridiculous. maybe they did, and maybe there's an argument for it, but it is by no means clear. furthermore, if you're going to argue something like that, there are a lot of guns available today that would certainly not fit into the definition you give.
the decision did not touch on the right of a person to defend oneself.
IF a person has a right to defend him/her self; THEN the government cannot take away the means by which one must defend themselves.
the founding fathers meant "the most modern weapons available". there were no exceptions included in the second ammendment.
the constitution is sacred because it was written by an oppressed people and designed as a model to keep the people free from oppression. you cannot oppress an armed society. throughout history a people or society had to be disarmed prior to oppression or control by another.
my question is why does americans right to own guns bother so many that do not live here? that seems to be the big opposition here. no one has offered any evidence to prove that their being disarmed has stopped any crime. nor has anyone offered any "per capita" data. if america has 10 times more people; then our crime would be 10 fold to equal your crime rate.
i've given loads of "per capita" data on here regarding gun related deaths, etc.
data published by the US government as well,.... not data doen by those two geeks on X-files.. or someone who owns a daisy painted VW camper van...
its on the numerous gun threads on the MT... i dont feel the urge to post it again for it to subsequently ignored
How cool would THAT be? Maybe a Harrier jet. Sure, they aren't as fast...but they seem a bit more practical for the average Joe.
If anything, I could fly across country in like 30 minutes!
Then I'd get a tank! Who's gonna fuck with someone who's got a tank?
The founding fathers, and constitutions-signers were rich, slave-owning aristocrats.
That's a silly argument. It has no basis in fact. Some countries (or cities) have more/less crime than others.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
you can own a tank or fighter jet. demiliterized of course. i once had a neighbor who owned a WWI tank. visit an air show and you'll meet a lot of people that privately own military aircraft.
Well, shit. I guess you just invalidated our entire constitutional republic.
Or maybe this is completely tangential and irrelevant.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.