http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_re_us/dc_gun_ban
2nd Amendment Rights affirmed by appeals court.
2007-03-09 10:00:06 · 14 answers · asked by MoltarRocks 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!
2007-03-09 16:57:48 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having read the full opinion (link below), the majority holding was based on the "individual rights" argument, which is a reasonable modern interpretation. But then again, the "collective rights" position is also reasonable, based on the plain text. The historical analysis of the terms "arms" and "militia", both modern and historical, are also very informative.
The news article doesn't accurate state the position of the dissent, however. The argument that "the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state" is taken out of context.
The analysis of the dissent refers to an earlier DC Circuit cases, which held that any guarantees of protection that may be claimed by states could not be claimed by DC, because DC is not a sovereign state.
That's an aspect of the Selective Incorporation doctrine, and one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government, not to states. That's well established law, going back to U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875). Since DC is not a state and is under direct federal control, it would be under the same limitations as any federal statute.
And aside from DC and the 5th Circuit, every other federal circuit has adopted the collective rights ("militia only") standard. As far as the ultimate outcome, the "individual rights" versus "militia rights" argument has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court, so it'll be interesting to see which way they come down on that.
2007-03-09 10:22:07 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's nice to see a positive vote for the private ownership of handguns. It is not coincidence that the places with the worst crime in the United States also has the strictest anti-gun laws.
I would like to see a ruling on the second ammendment by the Supreme Court before frau Hillary has a chance to stack the court to her contorted views.
If you read some of the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson (the guy who WROTE the second ammendment) he makes his view on personal firearm ownership perfectly clear. He intended it as an individual right.
Why do the anti-gunners try to call the phrase "the people" in the second ammendment a collective right instead of an individual right? Does anyone consider the phrase "the people" a collective right in any of the other ammendments? Try saying that the first ammendment does not mean every person but only established news outlets.
2007-03-09 10:13:04 · answer #3 · answered by damndirtyape212 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
FBI statistics show, that when you take the guns away from cities, that crime always goes up. When the good guys can't have them, only the bad guys do. Thousands and thousands of people defend themselves each year with a weapon. It is a shame that liberals don't see that. They just see things as if they are looking though a rolled up newspaper (narrow focus), as opposed to looking at the big picture.
2007-03-09 10:11:55 · answer #4 · answered by Dutch 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's about time the District of Columbia joined the United States. Who knows? Maybe California next?
2007-03-09 10:06:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The NRA is approximately to pounce on different ignorant cities that limit criminal handgun possession. regulations that require registration stand, however the blanket prohibition has been overturned. a large day in u . s . of america!
2016-10-17 23:52:40 · answer #6 · answered by console 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Outstanding! I hope they do not pass HR bill 254 Either it is in violation of the 1st Amendment...violating Free Speech Rights! Good! Maybe criminals will think twice before accosting legitimate citizens.
2007-03-09 10:06:48 · answer #7 · answered by ShadowCat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About time.
All banning guns does is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will have guns whether they are legal or not.
2007-03-09 10:04:32 · answer #8 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love it, perhaps FINALLY there can begin a Great American Wakeup to the facts that bans and laws never stop criminals from doing what they want anyway, and that gun bans only succeed in disarming the VICTIMS.
2007-03-09 10:24:53 · answer #9 · answered by barefoot_always 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should be...then not only the Bad Guys will have the guns..Law abiding citizens will be able to persue their rights.
2007-03-09 10:42:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was unconstitutional and shouldn't have been passed.
When you ban guns...only the law abiding citizens obey the law....
The thugs will have them anyway - just like they do now.
2007-03-09 10:09:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋