D.C. appeals to keep gun ban

D.C. appeals to keep gun ban

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 ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: D.C. appeals to keep gun ban

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147

    D.C. appeals to keep gun ban

    DC is asking for en banc review of the recent appeals court decision. AP story here.

    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.
    Damn straight!


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206

    What a waste of taxpayer money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    DC is asking for en banc review of the recent appeals court decision. AP story here.


    Damn straight!
    What a waste of tax payer money. I sure hope they are correct and it does limit any future gun control measures.
    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

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by havegunjoe View Post
    What a waste of tax payer money. I sure hope they are correct and it does limit any future gun control measures.
    I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I want this decision to be appealed, preferably all the way to the Supreme Court. If the high court actually decides this on the merits (hopefully by saying that the 2A actually means what it says) it will bring some clarity to 2A jurisprudance and bind the other circuits to that decision. The best thing for the antis to do would actually be to drop the appeal and let sleeping dogs lie (since the current lack of 2A guidance from the Supreme Court generally plays into their hands). However, the desire to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens seems to have overwhelemed good legal tactics in this case. I, for one, welcome such stupidity by the antis.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    Who said the antis were smart. look who their leader is.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    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.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    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.
    A psychologically devastating blow, perhaps, but legally it wouldn't be too much worse than what we have now. At the moment only two of the circuits have held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. Up until the decision in this case, the 2A has not been an effective legal bar against gun control. Having the Supreme Court reaffirm that wouldn't really change that. On the other hand, if the court held that the 2A does protect an individual right, it would be a dramatic change, one that would have repercussions for every gun control law now on the books or that might be enacted in the future. The high court could certainly rule against us (I think it would be close no matter which way it goes) but in legal terms I see a lot of upside and not much downside.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,977
    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


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array jeep45238's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    708
    '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?

  9. #9
    Member Array cs133atom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    32

    Permission

    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.

  10. #10
    Member Array TinySA45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    26

    Here's the problem if it goes to SCOTUS

    Scalia
    Thomas
    Alito
    Roberts

    vote for us, pro 2a, and, let's be honest, pro Constitution.

    Breyer
    Ginsburg
    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...

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by TinySA45 View Post
    Scalia
    Thomas
    Alito
    Roberts

    vote for us, pro 2a, and, let's be honest, pro Constitution.

    Breyer
    Ginsburg
    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...
    This is all true, and it is a risk. I think I'm kinda with Blackeagle on this one, though.

    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?

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I want this decision to be appealed, preferably all the way to the Supreme Court. If the high court actually decides this on the merits (hopefully by saying that the 2A actually means what it says) it will bring some clarity to 2A jurisprudance and bind the other circuits to that decision. The best thing for the antis to do would actually be to drop the appeal and let sleeping dogs lie (since the current lack of 2A guidance from the Supreme Court generally plays into their hands). However, the desire to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens seems to have overwhelemed good legal tactics in this case. I, for one, welcome such stupidity by the antis.

    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.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    A psychologically devastating blow, perhaps, but legally it wouldn't be too much worse than what we have now. At the moment only two of the circuits have held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. Up until the decision in this case, the 2A has not been an effective legal bar against gun control. Having the Supreme Court reaffirm that wouldn't really change that. On the other hand, if the court held that the 2A does protect an individual right, it would be a dramatic change, one that would have repercussions for every gun control law now on the books or that might be enacted in the future. The high court could certainly rule against us (I think it would be close no matter which way it goes) but in legal terms I see a lot of upside and not much downside.
    I agree with most of what you said, but I think the Supreme court ruling that the 2A is not an idividual right would be one heck of a blow.

    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 10:01 PM.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286
    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

  15. #15
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,340

    Typical D.C. Politicians...

    Guns bad...cocaine OK...

    ret
    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[/B]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Taser.... Ruling by Fed. Appeals Court
    By XD in SC in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 30th, 2009, 10:53 AM
  2. Uncommon success in federal appeals
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 5th, 2009, 12:01 AM
  3. Appeals court tosses out NYC lawsuit
    By Arisin Wind in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 12:27 PM
  4. GCO wins in GA Court of Appeals
    By ber950 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 7th, 2007, 08:58 PM
  5. New Hampshire Man Appeals Denial
    By ronwill in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 4th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Search tags for this page

d.c. appeals to keep gun ban

Click on a term to search for related topics.