Why is this judge so dense about "gun control"?

Question

AP - A federal appeals court overturned, by a 2-1 vote, DC's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias...Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

Hmmm...does that mean the rest of the bill of rights does not apply to DC, because it is not a state?

Coragryphs analysis falls short. He focuses on the terms "militia" and "state", and ignores the term "the people."

The term "free state" is not a reference to only those states among the "united states", but to *any* state. As for "militia", coragryph does not consider in his argument that *all* people were militia, and that the necessity described in the 2nd amendment was that of self defense. Perhaps coragryph would consider reading the Militia Act of 1792. "Militia's" were not armies, they were small groups of neighbors. He also ignores that 45 states have laws that enable carrying concealed arms for self defense.


Finally, coragryph's argument ignores that the right stated in the second amendment is a right of "the people", as with the rest of the bill of rights. This is an individual right, which is similar to that explicitly expressed in 44 state constitutions, not a "collective" right, as coragryph wrongly claims, siding with the dense judge.

Answer 1

It is my understanding, but I haven't read her opinion, that she read the "being necessary to the security of a free state" clause in the 2nd, and took that to mean state in the sense of United States. That is stupid, at best.

The clause clearly means "state" in the generic term, meaning nation or country. That lady is a bonehead.

Answer 2

Try reading the actual court decision. You (AP) is misquoting both the actual decision and the dissent. Probably because the person who wrote the news articled didn't understand the actual legal issues addressed in the holding.

First, the 2nd Amendment only regulates federal gun laws, not state laws, because (unlike the most of rest of the Bill of Rights), the 2nd Amendement does not apply against the states. In other words, the states are allowed to regulate firearms in ways that the federal goverment cannot.

Also, remember that states are sovereign. DC is not. So, yes, there are some things states are allowed to do that DC is not allowed to do because it is not a state.

And yes, there is a difference between the 2nd (and 7th) Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights, because those two amendments do NOT apply against state action, while the others do. Try researching the doctrine of Selective Incorporation, which is the current law in that area.

The legal issues are complex (because DC is not a state) and not anywhere as simply as "guns good, judges bad".

If a state had passed the same gun control laws, then they would probably have been upheld as valid. However, because DC is not a state, the specific legal analysis is different.

See the link below for a detailed analysis of the legal holding.

Answer 3

Just goes to show you that someone can have a college education and still not have enough common sense to empty pee out of a boot.

For this judge to make a statement to the fact that DC is "not a state" and therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply is the exact same thing as saying that the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution doesn't apply there, either...and that means that the people of Washington DC are NOT legally American citizens.

She also has used the tired old "Brady Bunch" dodge of saying that the word "state" as used in the amendment applies to a state as a part of the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. The word "state" is used to describe a manner of being, as in "state of health," not a physical territory.

Wanna bet she's a Demoncrat?

Answer 4

I wonder about all the laws regarding hand guns. Where I live if you have a permit you must carry your gun concealed. However if you don't you have a permit and you strap it on like in the old west it is legal. We also have another zany law in the city I live in; for a woman to drive through town here she is supposed to have a man in front of her vehicle walking with a shotgun firing once before reaching each red light to warn other drivers that a woman is approaching the intersection and twice as she exits town. These are old laws and are not enforced; I have often wondered just what would happen if someone tried to test them now. Back in the early 70's I wore my single shot six shooter down main street and nothing was said then I bet they would lock me up and throw the key away now. But never the less the laws are still on the books.

Answer 5

It used to be that DC was just for government operations...then people started living there.

But DC residents are Americans and have the same rights to gun ownership as someone in Ohio.

DC has really strict gun control and a really high crime rate...wonder what the Brady bunch has to say about THAT?

Answer 6

Technically yes - DC has a 'special' relationship to the US. The federal appeals court, appointed by Republicans, is once again being activist, making up the law instead of following the constitution. We need to get rid of the Republican activists in our appeals system, and get back to judges who will interpret the constitution as it is written, not the way they WANT it to be written.

Answer 7

this is the same DC that has the highest crime rate in the nation, see the pattern.

Answer 8

Typical rants from a liberal judge.