SubscribeDC Court Says 2nd Amendment Constitutional
From a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation:
D.C. Appeals Court Ruling Holds Second Amendment Protects ‘Individual Right’
BELLEVUE, Wash., March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is "a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct," the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.
In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, "In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intra-textually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." "This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense."
Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment "acknowledges … a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’." "Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,"
Judge Silberman wrote, "the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ’shall not be infringed’." Silberman’s ruling also observed, "The right of self-preservation … was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government." "Judge Silberman’s ruling," Gottlieb said, "reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes.
This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness." The ruling may be viewed at:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
This will probably have to be re-visited by the entire DC Court of Appeals "en banc." And then it will probably be bumped up to the Supreme Court, who may or may not choose to address it. (Though I would think they would.)
But it is surprisingly good news.
Still, isn’t it rather peculiar that a court even has to think twice about declaring the Second Amendment "Constitutional"?
If a Constitutional amendment isn’t Constitutional, then what is?
And of course this was an amendment approved by the framers at the same time as the Constitution itself.
27 Responses to “DC Court Says 2nd Amendment Constitutional”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Should have been unanimous.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
That’s great for D.C., but when will New Orleans gun owners get their illegally confiscated weapons back?
March 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I want to know what those girls are shooting at!
March 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Privatestock , Hopefully , Congress. ;)
March 9th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
SG said: “This will probably have to be re-visited by the entire DC Court of Appeals “en banc.” And then it will probably be bumped up to the Supreme Court, who may or may not choose to address it. (Though I would think they would.)”
En banc maybe, but SCOTUS has never granted certiorari to a case to interpret the 2nd Amendment. It’s unlikely they’d have enough support to call this one up. They would need 4 justices that want to hear it, Ginsburg, Souter and probably Breyer would agree, but its doubtful they’d get Stevens to go along. We’re probably safe with the other 5 especially libertarian superman Sam Alito!
March 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Those are dummy guns…and look at the dude in the background…what the hell is that all about? Give them M-14’s and let the games begin! Gym class with guns? WTF?
March 9th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Hot teachers sexing up HS boys……gym class with guns…..school truly did suck when I went.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Life is a gift, and our wise framers of the constitution knew that as well as these ” rights ” were givin to us by our creator. Not man ! To not defend one’s self or others is suicidal and cowardly. Why is there any debate on this at all? Lib-tards put man above our creator and continually enslave.
Makes me want to reload.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
All most forgot. S.G. , the above photo with this article is from?????
France?
March 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Man those chicks are gonna get bruised if they actually fire.
It should have been unanimous, but since you all are so gentlemenly, I will say it: It was not unanimous because of mommy, the third judge, judge mommy. A disgrace to women. Sorry, but maybe if she did not have so much protection and someone broke into her house, she just might think differently about guns, especially if a family member died. But she is a rich well-cared- for mommy judge, oh to be as confdent as her. I am still waiting for them to say you can carry freely there, until that day, I will hold the standing applause.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Not that I need to speak for SG, but to answer questions about the photo, it appears to be a rehearsal for a production of “The Nutcracker.” By the way, If I’m correct in assuming Amber is a woman, it’s nice to know there are some women out there who know what they’re doing around a firearm. You don’t see much of that out here in California.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
About the photograph, it’s from Google images. I’ll have to check the source for more information.
But I suspect it is as HG suggested, a rehearsal for the Nutcracker ballet.
Here is a larger version:
http://tinyurl.com/avk3d
But it is very telling to do a search for “gun rights” or “Second Amendment” or any of the other similar terms and see what you get. Practically nothing that is positive.
But of course Google doesn’t have any agenda.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Well, my weapons are safe…and I’m ready to strap on!
March 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
And indeed, here is the original source:
Nutcracker, 2004
http://tancos2.pmachinehosting.....nut04.html
March 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Get them girls out of the way and let a REAL Patriot through.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....&s=dvd
March 9th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Mr. Rifle, Tell us more…
March 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
SG I really think that Kos Kid or Soros is paying some bored 20somethings to just make sure that loser leftist sites come up 1st & always when you use certain words or phrases. It annoys me muchly, as there are some topics (and research) where I really do need conservative info and I have to wade through crap (usually until I am thoroughly disgusted). My hubby keeps trying to help me search correctly. I usually end up going to some conservative sites and linking through them - it’s a darn site faster.
Amber - it’s like me watching an actor riding a horse - drives me nuts, I spot every little thing. I remember, one time and one time only my brother tried a silly little hollywood gunslinger move. The bruise was impressive and the pain made him remember forever, listen to the person teaching you - there is a reason they say do it this way.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Any doubt about the correctness of this ruling should read the German firearms act of 1937, very telling indeed. Sometimes we win one, bout time too! This was sooooo done many years ago. To think I would have to go before a lib-tard to ask for permission and license, ( fees ), ( harassment ), etc. For something I already own. The GOD givin right to defend myself and family.Jeeez.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that ‘registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock’ was unconstitutional.”
‘registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock’
What the hell is the point of having a weapon if you have to do that?
March 9th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
doingwhatican… If you got a really good slingshot, you could leave a nasty red mark with all those parts and locks.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
[...] HotAir, Right Voices, Ace, and Sweetness & Light. [...]
March 9th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Ahh, this IS good news….
Amber, “Mommy” should remember the old saying: God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal.
Wirenut, the 1937 German act and the 1968 act here in America aren’t similar by coincidence. Chris Dodd, from Connecticut, admitted to using the German act as a model.
While I can agree that the ‘linking’ is done by bloggers (like the campaign to link Bush’s name on their sites so that if you type up “Miserable failure” in Google and hit “I feel lucky!” you come up with the Bush biography). However, Google allows it. I have a hard time imagining they would allow a small group of people to manipulate their web searches on other subjects, but when it comes to Bush-bashing, they never seem to catch it until too late–kind of like Reuters on their Lebanon fauxtography.
Add to that the fact that they give large contributions to the Democratic party and helped develop programming to make sure Chinese people can’t see any images that may be bad for the government, and I don’t use Google. On top of that, I’m careful to never click google ads (which are overwhelmingly liberal anyway.).
March 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Remember, a Constitutional Amendment is only Constitutional when the left thinks it should be. Otherwise, they find reasons or excuses to argue that the Amendment either isn’t Constitutional or that a new “interpretation” leaves it null and void.
Look at what they do with the First Amendment on a daily basis, with regards to separation of Church and state.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am
‘registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock’
What the hell is the point of having a weapon if you have to do that?
This is the law where I am. Fortunately there is bugger-all for crime here because if the yellow hordes, the Muslim hordes or whatever the horde-du-jour is, was bashing my front door down -my firearms would not play any role in the outcome.
Mind you, our beloved Liberals also gave us a 2 billion dollar long-gun registry that has been a farce from the get-go. If you own a rifle or shotgun to hunt with, you are required by law to notify the government if you change addresses. Convicted armed robbers, and many violent criminals are not required to do so (unless they legally register a firearm).
Whatever you do -hang onto that second amendment.
BTW, I have to confess to not being a very cultured individual (unless you count my bacteria collection) but I was unaware that there was so much gun-play in The Nutcracker.
My first thought on seeing that picture, was that there was some kind of horrible backlash to the Army’s ‘don’t-ask-don’t-tell’ policy. It does, however, conjure up some ideas for that next S&L story.
1st, you’re gonna look awfully funny in one of those tu-tu’s… :-)
March 10th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Think how funny I would look without one, It ain’t a pretty sight.
BTW DW, It has been in the high 70’s here the last few days and will be for the next week. Heh, Heh, Heh.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Damn 1st !
Here I am about to head off to bed (working nites again) and try to fall asleep thinking about something pleasant -like AC in jeans and a black leather basketweave rig by John Bianchi- and you just had to go and DANGLE that vision in front of me (shudder !).
And hey, the temperature shot all the way up to 30(F) here yesterday (granted it brought freezing drizzle with it) but that’s T-shirt weather !
March 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Checked out packing.org to see the gun laws in Iowa (tavelling there this week) and they said they do not have to honor any state’s permits and you can not even cary a knife concealed. That is BS. This is just simply stupid. I wish the Supreme court would take this issue up. States have the right to govern themselves, as long it does not directly conflict with the constitution. Here is what it said under knife law: “1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.”
I better toss out those knitting needles too. Who decides what a dangerous weapon is? This is so vague that I bet 100% of Iowa is in violation in some form or another.