http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DC_GUN_BAN?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote :

"Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the city cannot prevent people from keeping handguns in their homes. The ruling also struck down a requirement that owners of registered firearms keep them unloaded and disassembled. The court did not address provisions that prohibit people from carrying unregistered guns outside the home. The decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a portion of a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. "Today's decision flies in the face of gun laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," Mayor Adrian Fenty said. The city will likely appeal for a hearing of the full appeals court before any appeal to the Supreme Court, he said. Washington and Chicago are the only two major U.S. cities with sweeping handgun bans. Washington's ban on owning handguns went into effect in 1976 and is considered the toughest in the nation, according to the National Rifle Association. While courts in other parts of the country have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, the D.C. law is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. In 2004, a lower-court judge told six city residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection. But on Friday, Judge Laurence Silberman, writing for the majority, said, "The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow. There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state. The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue. If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope. "I think this is well positioned for review of the Supreme Court," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. Even as the appeals court overturned the city's 1976 ban on most handgun ownership, Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment." Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill."

This should prove to be very interesting.

3/10/2007 3:09:00 PM

I agree completely


[unreleated] http://www.stopungunban.org/

3/10/2007 3:19:48 PM

The only people this affected were legal gun owners. I assure you there are tons of handguns in DC.

3/10/2007 3:21:00 PM

2-1 ???

WTF. that shoulda been 3-0

3/10/2007 3:22:07 PM

i agree completely

3/10/2007 4:32:40 PM

Now democrats can defend themselves against republican attacks

3/10/2007 4:49:43 PM

^^^ Even worse seems to be the reasoning for the dissent:

Quote :

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."

IOW DC is a constitution free zone.

3/10/2007 4:52:28 PM

^well if you think about the scope of federal government verses the actual powers inumerated by the consitution then maybe this explains it...

3/10/2007 5:45:57 PM

'Bout fuckin' time.

3/10/2007 5:51:19 PM

bot fuckin time

3/10/2007 6:24:41 PM

Judge Karen infers that the District of Columbia isn't bound by the Constitution. Then the city must revert back to a lawless town where gangsters and gunslingers ruled the streets. Deadwood Lives!

What a minute, gangsters and gunslingers already rule the streets in DC. Never Mind.

3/10/2007 10:34:30 PM

yay, for DC no longer being a police state

3/11/2007 10:20:54 AM

Quote :

"The DC Gun Ban by Ron Paul Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron. Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them. In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army. Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe – as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control – like Washington DC – experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed. Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake. Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government. March 13, 2007 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. "

3/13/2007 2:11:26 PM

I wonder if my NC CCP will be allowed in DC like it is in ~30 other states...probably not but oh well

3/13/2007 3:43:32 PM

Quote :

"Judge Karen infers that the District of Columbia isn't bound by the Constitution. Then the city must revert back to a lawless town where gangsters and gunslingers ruled the streets"

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

it's b/c of the second clause...which is not to say there's any credence to it--just that it is

3/13/2007 4:02:48 PM

^ Not quite, that was the reasoning behind the ban, but the dissenting judges reasoning to not find in favor of the plaintifs was:

Quote :

"Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state. "

3/13/2007 6:11:37 PM

yes, i know this. the point is that DC isn't a "free state" in need of a well regulated militia to secure it

3/13/2007 7:13:10 PM

well obviously they should keep the ban and let the citizens of DC continue to live in fear of the thugs and gang bangers that still arm themselves ban or no ban

3/14/2007 8:20:05 AM

^^^She should not be allowed to say that since she shouldn't have the freedom to say that since the 1st Amendment shouldnt apply to DC either since its not a state. As a matter of fact, what the fuck is that bitch even voting for? The 19th Amendment doesn't apply to DC either.

3/14/2007 10:19:55 AM

^You're assuming that our system of government bases its rulings on logical reasoning. Which is incorrect, I'm afraid.

3/14/2007 10:23:39 AM

thank goodness, i won't have to cancel my DC hunting trip this weekend.

and before you criticize me, i know guns are for protection too. i was just making a joke, not a point.

[Edited on March 17, 2007 at 7:08 AM. Reason : ]

3/17/2007 7:07:02 AM

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Bill of RIghts does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

3/19/2007 2:45:01 PM

funny, I wonder if she feels that way about other rights

3/19/2007 2:46:32 PM

^I agree, that judge is an idiot.

3/19/2007 3:14:42 PM

Doesn't the bill of rights apply to american citizens and not just state residents? i guess the only argument she could say is that states ratify amendments and DC doesn't ratify amendments so it isn't under the same restrictions? if so, that's still fucked up.

3/19/2007 3:27:24 PM

my interpretation and opinion is that rights are inalienable from birth


the state cannot take them away


I'm tired of these politicians that violate these rights by vote buying and trying to establish "security"

3/19/2007 4:17:50 PM

Quote :

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

3/20/2007 1:05:01 AM

so, under what law does DC operate, then? if it's not a state, then does the US Constitution apply?

Give me a break. Anyone with half a brain can see that the word "state" in the 2nd ammendment does NOT refer to an individual state; rather, it applies to the whole freaking country. Otherwise, the founders would have used the word "states" in the same way they used it in other ammendments. Dumb bitch. She should be disbarred for such a stupid statement.

3/20/2007 1:40:03 PM

^ Bingo. And the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the people are. . .well. . .the people--not the state and federal governments.

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 1:46:51 PM

No, not really, read your own quote, "are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

The reason that the people are considered to be the people is becaue of judicial precident, not the 10th Ammendment.

3/21/2007 2:36:10 PM

Hopefully when this goes to the Supreme Court they will agree with the federal appeals court and not the lower court

3/21/2007 2:48:08 PM

^^ The very problem is "judicial precident" (sic). I was referring to the original intent of the Framers, which I believe is clearly illustrated in the plain language of the Tenth Amendment.

3/22/2007 11:51:01 AM

So was I. The 10th Amendment is called the State's Rights and not the People's Rights ammendment for a reason. It is the consistent interpretation, by the judiciary, of the word "people" applying to the people as individuals (as opposed to collectively, as in a state) that drives the notion of individual rights. That precedent derives more heavily from the "We the People" clause of the preamble, and the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") than the 10th Amendment.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM. Reason : damn my imperfect grammar]

3/22/2007 2:45:52 PM

^ I'll try this one more time: When reading the straightforward wording of the Tenth Amendment, it should be understandable to even the casual observer that the Framers intended the "people" to mean individuals--not a collective government entity. There is clear separation among federal, state, and individual powers. In addition, note even their lack of capitalization, which was common for conceptual references during the time the Tenth Amendment was written. Clearly, the lower-case "p" further illustrates that the Framers meant "people" in the individual sense.

3/22/2007 5:15:40 PM

Yes, I know that. I'm just saying that the 9th Amendment and the preamble are better references for the people than the 10th. No, wait, you're right and I'm sorry, I should have never tried to interject fact and years of legal precedent (sorry, yes, it does matter) into your clouded little mind. Please, accept my apology.

3/22/2007 5:45:05 PM

fact is not allowed in TSB. GTFO!

3/22/2007 7:07:49 PM

my bad

3/22/2007 7:09:19 PM