Updated: 6:32 p.m. CT March 9, 2007
WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.
In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
The majority 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 district’s definition of the militia is just too narrow,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority. “There are too many instances of ‘bear arms’ indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139
2007-03-12 00:36:12 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
At last,some sanity reins it's head in D.C.
2007-03-12 00:40:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
How would this be considered a huge defeat for liberals .
Cause and effect is the rational conclusion reached by many people . The cause of many gun incidents accidental or intentional are the direct result of ownership .
The effect is that the number of deaths increase in area's that are strict on gun control . Not accidental deaths or suicides just out right violent death .
This comes from weaker sentences for violent offenders .
It also comes from juvenile offenders who have become accustom to incarceration . Gang association is also part of the problem in which crimes are committed and those who serve time are considered to have earned special respect among their peers .
Violence and a rise in it is due to the nature of keeping offenders off the streets .
London which has had strict gun control laws has witnessed an increase in gun related crimes and along with this it has also over the past twenty years gotten lighter sentences for criminals .
A liberal should recognize that gun control only stops kids from killing kids when they find and play with guns and it reduces the number of suicides because people with bi polar disorders and people with depression problems may not have a gun handy when they are feeling blue .
So some lives will be saved by banning gun ownership and violent crime can be reduced by keeping criminals locked up .
Gun control along with stiffer penalty's for violent offenders go hand in hand and thats the truth of the matter .
Its a two fold approach to saving lives.
One without the other makes no sense .
For conservatives this is the one time I can agree that stronger sentences are warranted but Gun control can also prevent many accidental shootings and suicides .
2007-03-12 08:38:24 · answer #2 · answered by trouble maker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF the facts of the case are as reported, this issue will go before the US Supreme cour, yet again. Silbermans decision is flawed in that it uses his interpretation of contemporary practice to interpret the intent of the framers of that law.
Additionally, there are many other statutes that expand the unrestricted use of firearms without infringing AM2.
This issue has been litigated at least 20 times in the past 50 years. In none of those cases was AM2 overturned.
I would say that this looks like just anther attempt on the part of the far right to erode the bill of rights.
2007-03-12 07:54:55 · answer #3 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't worry. America will never lose her rights to own guns. Liberals and Conservatives alike, realize, without them, the government can take full control of our lives. The basic reason that our forefather's put "the right to bare arms" in the Constitution, was to "fight against tyranny, and government". Those are the exact words written down in the Constitution. I guess our forefather's were pretty smart, and thought ahead. Thank God for them!
2007-03-12 07:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As a liberal,
I applaud this decision
I am against gun control !!
You see as a liberal, I am able to pick and choose the polices that I like whereas, my Conservative counterparts, can only agree with the Republican party and their political pundants
or be ostracized from the ranks and branded as someone that "doesn't love America"
2007-03-12 09:35:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a liberal and I think it was the right ruling.
Now will will see if DCs crime rate plummets, or not.
Can you believe it, though - that is the FIRST time the SC EVER decided a 2nd amendment case.
2007-03-12 07:53:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about a huge defeat for liberals, but it is a definite victory for civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
2007-03-12 07:43:24 · answer #7 · answered by Bryan 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
oh.... yeah... especially since it's been like 20 years since I've heard a liberal mention gun control
that's really got to sting...
there are some that still tote that line... but they seem to be the vast minortiy anymore... in fact, I know serveral liberals that actually don't like gun control... not all, but some...
2007-03-13 03:46:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Liberal and oppose gun control. This is a victory for me and a huge defeat for people who use stereotypes.
2007-03-12 07:58:23 · answer #9 · answered by Tom B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given the crime rate in DC this is a great decision.
2007-03-12 07:42:58 · answer #10 · answered by mr_methane_gasman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When Liberals loose so does Liberty.
2007-03-12 09:14:18 · answer #11 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋