Gentlemen:

This article in the Washington Times sends a clear and calming message about the recent 2nd Amendment ruling from the DC Distric Court.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070319-092046-6794r.htm

Ralph

I think that it is "pretty cool" that you posted that. The 2nd Ammendment to the the Constitution of United States of America is clear here. Question in "brain" has allways been, Why is it different in our nations capital?

Cheezywan

Finally a press piece that is written in common sense terms and sees the validity of the second amendment as written and meant to be. It is true that all amendments must be tempered for this day and age but their basic meanings are not meant to be completely changed for political uses or depriving the rights we all have due to us by the Bill of Rights. The decision by the court was correct and the dissenting vote based it's dissent on the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state. I guess living in the nation's capitol means you should have less rights than our states and territories!

While on the subject it should have been eight US District Court Justices that should have been fired, not the eight US Attorneys!

Call me hardcore, but I object to the article's squashing the possession of AK-47s. I don't believe the Second Amendment is limited to handguns.

But at least it's a step in the right direction.

Mark

A small step in the right direction. But what is needed is some leaps and bounds in that direction!!! :cool:

Had a talk with a friend who is a D.C. resident. The ruling is so favorable to gun owners, he says the local press talk has been that the losers will not appeal. They they don't want to risk it being upheld by the Supreme Court and becoming the national standard. They want it to be limited to the DC circuit's jurisdiction, which it would be, since other circuit courts have decided on behalf of regulators with the "collective" right argument in other jurisdictions.

I can't find anywhere in the 2nd amendment where a citizen would be restricted to their rights only while at home! It's simply not there, but this is a step in the right direction, and I'm happy for our countrymen who live there.

Nick:


Wouldn't this cause other people in other jurisdictions to be heartened and file appeals on their own behalf, causing it to ultimately reach the Supreme Court. An example would be residents of NYC?

Also, don't disagreements between Circuit Courts reach the Supreme Court for final resolution?

Call me hardcore, but I object to the article's squashing the possession of AK-47s. . .

It didn't. The writer of the article simply used the inflammatory language to ridicule the Chicken Littles who think relief of any gun restriction means a Hollywood-style wild west culture will evolve, or in this case that an AK-47 culture (whatever wild imaginings of the anti-gun crowd that is?) will develop and come down on their heads. It was the article writer, not the court.


I can't find anywhere in the 2nd amendment where a citizen would be restricted to their rights only while at home! . .

And neither did the ruling. The ruling, like all rulings, has a context. It came about because the law being challenged in court prohibited handguns even for self-defense in the home. That's what the court has held is an example of going too far in regulating Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean it is the only possible example.


Wouldn't this cause other people in other jurisdictions to be heartened and file appeals. . .

Some might if they had a case decided against them previously that involved a different interpretation of the Second Amendment, or if they lived somewhere with a law like the one the ruling overturns. NY doesn't prohibit, but their regulations sure are strict enough to amount to near-prohibition in some instances. It's a maybe, for that place.

Also, don't disagreements between Circuit Courts reach the Supreme Court for final resolution?

Only if someone appeals a ruling in one district that contradicts the interpretation of the Constitution in another. Same thing. A test case of the definition of the Second Amendment in some other district where it was held to mean something else (i.e., a collective right) needs to be challenged. Also, if this case is never appealed before the whole 12 judge panel of the DC Circuit Court, I don't know what that does to its status? If it doesn't get that far, it may not be considered enough of a conflict? I'll have to ask my attorney friend on that score?

The important thing about this ruling is that it throws out the "collective right" argument gun controllers have long depended on in reading the Second Amendment in their own favor. Specifically it states that guns may be owned for the purpose of being ready for a militia call up, but need not be owned exclusively for that purpose, and in this case, being allowed to keep one in the home for self-defense was an example of one of the other purposes that is protected. Again, that is not to say it is the only other purpose, but is the one the law suit brought the challenge over.

All the rest about specifics of restrictions is open to legislative discussion and argument and, possibly, future court challenges. Just what we got here is a real Federal Court paradigm shift; a big, big step in the right direction.