This is a discussion on D.C. appeals to keep gun ban within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; DC is asking for en banc review of the recent appeals court decision. AP story here . District of Columbia officials warned a federal appeals ...
DC is asking for en banc review of the recent appeals court decision. AP story here.
Damn straight!District of Columbia officials warned a federal appeals court Monday that its rejection of the city's handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control.
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.
Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor
Who said the antis were smart. look who their leader is.
IMHO: while ther is a chance that the Supremes would uphold, there is also a chance that they may not. Always risky when the stakes are at that level.
Might be better for us if they (the high court)let the ruling stand without hearing the case. It's hard to say. If it went the wrong way it would be a devastating blow for 2A supporters. Having read the case, the pro 2A argument is well founded, but who knows what might happen on appeal.
Who would have ever thought they would hold in favor of McCain-Feingold(sp?)?
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
I think I'd rather have it addressed by the court and its current Justices, than wait several years after its composition may have changed with a more activist or "liberal" slant? It's truly hard for me to envision a more conservative court, but I'm just a paper-pushing fool in Texas......LOL
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
't will severely limit the authority of both the District government and Congress to legislate in ways that they believe will best protect citizens and law-enforcement officers from gun violence," the city's lawyers wrote."
Shy don't the ask the voters instead of assuming what they want?
I have always believed that you shouldn't have to ask permission to do something that is already a right; correct? I mean you do have to have a permit to speak freely correct? Why should I have to have a permit to carry a gun. It's an individual right granted by the Bill of Rights; During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. They finally agreed on the 10 amends that currently stand today. AN AMERICAN'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It's the only answer that will keep this country from eating itself alive.
vote for us, pro 2a, and, let's be honest, pro Constitution.
Souter (appointed by Bush I, but that's a rant for a different forum)
Stevens (appointed by Ford, again, why do Republicans do such an awful job of appointing Justices?)
vote against us, against the 2a, and therefore against the Constitution.
Which leaves Justice Kennedy. Who knows how he will vote, despite being a Reagan appointee...
I think that if this does go up to SCOTUS, there's a good chance of a positive ruling, given the strength of the case and the distribution of justices. This would be a huge victory for us, absolutely monumental, and it would likely be used as the start of a return of rights already infringed (something that almost never happens without a forcible change of power).
If things go badly, and they overturn the lower court's ruling, yes, it would be a big kick in the nuts for gun rights advocates. But, anti-gunners have been doing that (incrementally) for decades. Even now, they push unconstitutional laws as fast as they can get people to vote for them. This isn't going to change, no matter what ruling comes down. The difference will be whether we have something to hold them back.
So, the question is this: Do we push for what is right, when the risk is lowest? Or do we resist any change, even good change, for fear of it falling out from under us, and in the process get dragged further down the wrong path?
I also feel that I would like to see this brought before the USSC for some attempt at a "final clarification" -- particularly because I don't see how it could go in favor of the antis except for a scandalous kangaroo-type hearing. There just is no logical way that they could find against the individual rights interpretation after all the FACTS that have been shown to back that up.
George Will wrote a column soon after the D.C. decision, saying that if the USSC does come down in favor of the gun bans, and throws out an individualist reading of 2A, gun ban leftists will be free to put forth all kinds of gun bans and then we'll find out where the voters really stand. The way he put it, he made it seem like it would not be positive for the left if they push this.
But in the larger view, it's unfathomable right from the start that the left doesn't even see the logic of citizens owning arms; and that they don't see the abject failure of gun control (unless of course we cynically say that they want it to fail, to give them more cause to seize more control).
One poster here said something I want to correct: he said that the Bill of Rights grants us our rights. Written into part of the D.C. court's decision was a statement that the rights protected by the 2A are protected by it, NOT granted by it. Our rights are assumed to preexist the Constitution, not come about because of it. Please recognize this fact, because it's important.
Now, as far as the USSC hearing the case is concerned . . . Yes, I think that we would not see the 2A get trashed as "collectivist"; however, I fear a likelihood that they would somehow find a way to issue a "split-the-baby," B.S. decision that would be very narrowly tailored so as to essentially "settle" the case but not really set forth that 2A protects our gun rights and makes gun laws unconstitutional. Does anyone really believe that the justices are, individually, keen on trashing a century of laws with one decision like this, no matter which way they lean?
I also have a problem at a very basic level with the USSC: I don't think decisions about what is or is not constitutional should stand if they are anything but unanimous. When the "final arbiter" of what is constitutional makes a 5-4 decision, it boils down to the fact that the "big, high-powered minds" at the top of our judicial system do not agree on something that should be more or less objective. When a 5-4 decision comes down, it sends a message (to me, at least) that the court still doesn't really know whether something is constitutional or not, but we're gonna be stuck with whatever the "5" side believes. That's not good.
Honestly, I'd rather not give them the opportunity to do that, because I just don't trust the current court.(though I think it has improved lately I agree with Tinysa45's asesment of the court) Add to that, the fact that the case may not make it to the supremes until after Hillary or Obama has been elected, another justice has retired, and their appointee may be ruling on the case too.
If I were confident that the court was packed with true contructionists,(or even one more constructionist) I would have a different opinion, but then again my opinion doesn't really count for much anyway, so we'll see.
Last edited by sgtD; April 10th, 2007 at 09:01 PM.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
Like we did not see this coming, so when they loose again will they reimburse the tax payers for their folly, (yes this is sarcasm).
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
Guns bad...cocaine OK...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member