D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

69charger

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!

soulsinging

what i want to know is why it is limited to guns and when they will deem the ban on heavy artillery, private possession of fighter jets, or home nuclear fission devices to be unconstitutional.

sonicreducer

i am going to buy a gun this summer. i want a pistol, and a concealed weapons liscense. im not sure what type to get though considering i have a limited budget for it.

NOCODE#1

69charger wrote:

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

Finally they get something right!!! Yay!

i got a gun for you

NOCODE#1

sonicreducer wrote:

i am going to buy a gun this summer. i want a pistol, and a concealed weapons liscense. im not sure what type to get though considering i have a limited budget for it.

sounds about right ...............gun owners usually can't spell license.

sonicreducer

NOCODE#1 wrote:

sounds about right ...............gun owners usually can't spell license.

oh gees, fry me an egg and slap my red-headed kids,... license!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

jeffbr

Nice to see that freedom prevailed over the nanny state on Friday. What a refreshing change.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgtAKpgSz7I

mca47

Here in Arizona there is the concealed weapon law.
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.

jeffbr

mca47 wrote:

Here in Arizona there is the concealed weapon law.
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.

Cosmo

Here's something I don't understand... People that usually approve of "private use of arms... as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government"... but, allow this government to be intrusive into our private lives. Seems odd to me.. because I hear the phrase, "I've got nothing to hide", which must mean that if they DO own firearms... they were purchased legally and are currently licensed... because to do otherwise would be against the law... making them criminals and someone that SHOULD be placed under surveillance.
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.

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

Here's something I don't understand... People that usually approve of "private use of arms... as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government"... but, allow this government to be intrusive into our private lives. Seems odd to me.. because I hear the phrase, "I've got nothing to hide", which must mean that if they DO own firearms... they were purchased legally and are currently licensed... because to do otherwise would be against the law... making them criminals and someone that SHOULD be placed under surveillance.
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.

VERY good point!

69charger

soulsinging wrote:

what i want to know is why it is limited to guns and when they will deem the ban on heavy artillery, private possession of fighter jets, or home nuclear fission devices to be unconstitutional.

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

69charger

sonicreducer wrote:

i am going to buy a gun this summer. i want a pistol, and a concealed weapons liscense. im not sure what type to get though considering i have a limited budget for it.

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

dunkman

sonicreducer wrote:

i am going to buy a gun this summer. i want a pistol, and a concealed weapons liscense. im not sure what type to get though considering i have a limited budget for it.

is this because you cant get a girlfriend?

sonicreducer

dunkman wrote:

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?

dunkman

sonicreducer wrote:

what is the big deal about owning a gun man? you scared im going to try and shoot you or something?

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

sonicreducer

dunkman wrote:

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,...

lucylespian

soulsinging wrote:

what i want to know is why it is limited to guns and when they will deem the ban on heavy artillery, private possession of fighter jets, or home nuclear fission devices to be unconstitutional.

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 ??

lucylespian

69charger wrote:

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

"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 ??