A report just came over the news that a U.S. District Appeals Court in Washington D.C. has ruled that the Washington D.C. ban on private gun ownership is unconstitutional, and violate the second ammendment. The court ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, and self defense, and to ban that right is unconstitutional. It's expected that the mayor of D.C. will appeal this ruling to the United States Supreme Court, but historically, the Supreme Court has refused to hear such cases, and deferred to the lower appeals court rulings in cases such as this.

quote:

but historically, the Supreme Court has refused to hear such cases, and deferred to the lower appeals court rulings in cases such as this.

At least in this case that sounds good. The problem is when the lower court makes a bonehead decision! (which is often unfortunately)

I am scared to death that the Dem's are going to be after our guns in an unprecedented fashion, the recently introduced sweeping bill they produced (basically the reincarnation of Clintons assault weapons ban--with much more heinous pieces) is a case in point.

I am supporting the NRA as much as I can, as always, but am more hopeful than ever of their's and others actions on our country's behalf!

If thats the 7 th court of appeals, like I suspect, my father-in-law sits on that court.
He sure never mentioned that comming up, I'll have to find out more first hand.

i just read thru the 75 page decision and TSJ if it comes from your father in law Sir my hat, my head, and my heart are out to him. He just reaffirmed the spirit of the constitution.

Heard it on Rush Limbaugh minutes after it happened!!

This could be the best thing that ever happened to this country, or it could be the WORST.

This was from a panel of only 3 of the twelve judges in the D.C, District. The case will most assuredly be appealed to be heard en banc by the full Court. If the full court upholds the panel's ruling, it will certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as this is in direct conflict with a ruling by the asinine and idiotic Ninth Circuit in California.

If the Supreme Court even agrees to hear the case (not likely before next year's elections) and actually upholds the D.C. ruling, WOO-HOOOOOOoooooo!!!!!!

Happy days are here again !!!

But there are MANY ways for this to be sidetracked before getting there, and you can believe the Democrats will pull out ALL the stops to win this one !!!

Where do you find the ruling and who sat for it?

The 5th circuit went for the individuals rights in US V Emerson, and that would also have to come up.

Hopefully the Courts will give some guidance on what weapons are free from government meddling. After all, when the amendment was penned, the arms to be kept and born were smoothbore flintlocks. How much modern technology will be covered will be a sticking point. If the courts protect too much, there will surely be a motion to repeal the 2nd, and with the left now in power, that could be troublesome.

asdf

When the 1st was penned we did not have TV Radios modern printing press's computers telephones ect.

So under your thinking all those could be banned with out violating the 1st.

My college degree was in American History, most specifically, colonial times. To be sure what was meant and what was available to the individual was easily equivalent to many currently class or title three firearms in todays world. Regarding the second amendment, there was a comma which seperated the thoughts and the differences. That to me says all one needs to know abou the true intent of the law. What bastardization of that law we have come to live with, well....

quote:

Hopefully the Courts will give some guidance on what weapons are free from government meddling. After all, when the amendment was penned, the arms to be kept and born were smoothbore flintlocks. How much modern technology will be covered will be a sticking point. If the courts protect too much, there will surely be a motion to repeal the 2nd, and with the left now in power, that could be troublesome.

This is an example of an often heard and totally baseless arguement. After the revolution retiring soldiers were often given their issued muskets. Those muskets regardless of being smoothbored flintlocks were state of the art weapons at the time the equivelent of today's M16. To argue technological advances since then have ANY bearing is totally absurd! The constitution is about individual rights not rights of the society. Assuming an inanimate object (firearm) is dangerous equates to assuming every citizen is a potential criminal. Our society is built on presumed innocence.

As my mentor in advocacy once said; "If I choose to keep a howetzer in my back yard should be nobody elses business. Only if I shoot it at the neighbor's house do I deserve to be promptly arrested!"

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
Hopefully the Courts will give some guidance on what weapons are free from government meddling. After all, when the amendment was penned, the arms to be kept and born were smoothbore flintlocks. How much modern technology will be covered will be a sticking point. If the courts protect too much, there will surely be a motion to repeal the 2nd, and with the left now in power, that could be troublesome.

Changing the constitution is no mean feat. It takes (an I'm relying on my high school civics) two thirds of the House, Senate, and two thirds of all the states must radify. The only other way is through a Constititional covention, which is equally hard to call.

I doubt SCOTUS would rule that arms are limited to what was available to 18th century arms. To do so would have incredible effects on all the other aspects on the constitution (press freedoms, religious rights, etc...). If they hear the case and rule in favor of individual rights, then I'd bet that there will be a whole bunch of cases heard over the subsequent years refining the decision.

But what do I know as the only legal training that I've got was in HS and I can barely remember that.

-Steve

p dog shooter: the average non-shooter is not afraid of TVs or radios. Neither is likely to be used as a weapon. It is the non-shooters who will decide whether the 2nd is repealed.

oupa: to claim muskets are the "equivelent of today's M16" is to miss the point. Yes, it was common issue, but the M16 can inflict a far greater number of wounds in a fraction of the time a musket ever could. That is what the non-shooting public fears. The militia was found to be relatively ineffective, and the US adopted a standing army. Non-shooters today want a professional army, not a bunch of guys with M16 and TOW missles in their basements. Unless you can convince the non-shooting public there is an alternative, we risk a repeal of the 2nd. Surprisingly, some of the modern left fear the standing army just as the framers did; Gary Hart (remember him?) wrote a book calling for greater reliance on the militia. Now, since I doubt even you would permit sales of nerve gas at Wal-Mart, I hope we are in agreement that there will be limits on the weaponry that civilians can possess. The Courts need to carefully draw this line. Too far one way and the shooters might go underground. Too far the other way, and repeal is, I believe, certain, and that was my point. As for presumed innocence, that's in court rooms. If the guy facing you is holding a flame thrower, most people today would fear him and be greatly suspicious of his intents.

Steve: I agree the Courts aren't likely to ban all modern rifles. If, though, the dreams of the others here came true, and the Courts placed no reasonable limits on civilian weapons, the majority of the public would support repeal. That is the point of my comments. Also, do you really believe a vast majority of people supported the prohibition on alcohol that one time made it into the constitution?

Gents, depending on the political climate, it doesn't take the support of 3/4 the people to amend the constitution. Due to the winner-take-all form of our elections, our representatives don't always represent a fair cross section of opinion in the nation. With the pendulum swinging left, we must be careful. Even 1/2 the people supporting repeal could do the trick, if the representatives at the time are mostly of the left. We don't want to hand the antis an argument such as "We don't want to take all their guns, but the 2nd has been ruled to permit full-auto weapons, hand grenades, etc. so we must take action. We promise not to pass restrictions beyond that." Indeed, a Court wanting to impose an effective repeal but not wanting to take the heat, could simply state there are no limits on civilian weaponry and then sit back and watch the legislature take care of the 2nd for them.

quote:

Our society is built on presumed innocence.

...just in case you missed it the first time.

More Americans are killed by automobiles than guns. More cops are killed by automobiles than guns. More Americans are kiled by (malpractice of) doctors than guns... Yes our society is highly influenced by propaganda and retoric but by and large we still subscribe to common sense. I doubt we'll (in our lifetimes) ever see a serious attempt to "repeal" the 2nd amendment. Yes asdf, you are correct, I would not want to see nerve gas sold at WalMart - at least not without restrictions! To say the "state-of-the-art" weaponry of one era is different from that of another era simply because it's more efficient is hog wash. The Constitution is about philosophy. It is not about actual "things." To denounce a semi-auto rifle (yes I know M16's are full auto) becuse they didn't exist 200+ years ago is a defacto argument that the computer you're using right now is not protected by the first ammendment!

I think what you're trying to say is that there should be "common sense" limits. Correct?

Now... all this "civilized" talk of arms control assumes a realtively civilized society. Keep in mind the framers were in a period of revolt against a tyranical power. They understood the importance of an individual's means of defense - the war being against the entire populace rather than just the military forces. This is not a comment on England anytime other than THEN. It was war after all and it is long over. The point is that the new American powers had no desire or intent to hamper the ability of the American people to defend themselves. Shortly after the war of independence we had the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington sent troops to restore order but there was still no attempt to permanently disarm or even restrict the people's second ammendment rights! In short there was no fear of the populace. Individual acts of gun violence (yes, people murdered people with guns even then!) were handled as actions by individuals as they should be. There was no projection of blame onto the means of the murder, just the act of murder. It makes no difference if someone is shot thirty times with an M16 or once through the chest with a Brown Bess. The result is the same - dead victim! Now if you're talking about the possibility of multiple victims there is some credibility to this but very little. Is a rifle firing thrity indibvidual bullets more a threat than a shotgun firing nine rounds of fifty or so buckshot per round? Is a fifty caliber bullet more deadly by virtue of SIZE than a thirty caliber bullet? These arguements are all more or less accademic. In the end, no matter what means is used to do it murder is still and act by an individual... and to paraphrase Archie Bunker; "would you rather they were pushed out of windows?"

Murder has ALWAYS been illegal no matter what the means. Restricting the available tools will not deter the motivated murderer.

asdf - As far as I'm concerned it has little bearing here but I must ask... since this is a debate of AMERICAN values and laws and you list your location as Peterborough, UK. it raises an obvious question. Are you by chance an American living in the UK for some reason?
BTW - I do understand your arguement - that it is people ignorant of these facts we users understand that will decide - but I do not accept that they cannot tell the difference and such an attempt would bring at least as much publicity of these facts before the public as they get mis-information toady. That is the biggest problem we have. We are always taking to defensive rather than the offense.

oupa, you are correct, I'm American. My wife's work here should finish this fall, and I'm looking forward to moving back to the central US. Shooting is one of many things I miss.

You and p dog shooter above have mentioned that advances in technology have been gathered under the protections of the 1st, and this is as it should be. This is also in our favor!, for it means the Courts should also consider allowing advances in weapons technology to be covered by the 2nd.

How much modern technology is the question before the Courts. There simply must be limits, we agree. Too many modern weapons an individual can bear are an unreasonable risk. I don't think the Courts would try to violate the letter of the constitution by allowing bans on 1789 style muskets. I am sure they will place limits, and I sincerely hope these limits meet with general public approval. I hope these limits are consistent with the intent of 1789, but that's not a given.

You cannot deny that a guy or group of guys on a rampage in 1789 were rather more limited in their ability to commit mayhem. Crimes such as at Columbine school simply could not have occured in 1789. Yes, knives and swords take no time to reload, but they won't stop in their tracks a fleeing victim 20 feet away like an AR-15 can. This is the reality the non-shooting public sees. (Yes, I understand arson then was quite likely to cause more misery than a Columbine today, but I don't think non-shooters today will appreciate that.)

Now, unless one of you can prove you have a telepathic link to Thomas Jefferson and all those other greats, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing modern non-shooters that weapons of the capability of the AR-15 would have been readily approved of by the authors of the constitution. Personally, I'm not convinced T.J. and the others would have, at least not as a toys sold to any fool that walks into a gun shop. I do think they would have in the context of Sweden or Switzerland, where service rifle comes with service. Non-shooters fear a lonely bubba going on a spree. Most have never handled a rifle and don't want to. In Switzerland, everyone (I believe it is) must learn marksmanship. Everyone then understands what a rifle can and cannot do. I think this service is also important in that the average Joe, with his service rifle, feels connected to a cause, namely standing with his fellow citizens, perparing for the defense of his country. I'm pretty sure that's what T.J. hoped for. I don't think T.J. would have approved of some selfish, frustrated mis-fit fondling his AR in the basement, which is how many non-shooters see us.

Frankly, I think the authors of the constitution would be appalled at the way gun ownership has ended up. In reading the constitution itself, with its numerous references to the militia, and in considering the arguments put forth by men such as Halbrook, it is clear to me those men then wanted a trained militia in place. That this has fallen aside is worrisome from people on the left such as Gary Hart to the those on the right such as the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

I have no idea how we can convince the non-shooters in the U.S. they need to take up arms. I don't think the average Peggy Bundy wants to be bothered with it. No, I'm sure of that. One book on the history of the militia I read indicated even in the era immediately following the revolution, militia service was shirked and that the fiasco of 1812 was in part a result of this. Our standing army has proven itself trustworthy (with occasional exceptions to the rule), and the great majority of Americans are happy to leave defense to these pros. With such a detachment to defense among the people, repeal of the 2nd is quite feasible, especially as the population becomes more urban.

Given I don't believe the people will accept being forced into becoming familiar with rifles, the best we can hope for from this recent court case is a ruling by the Supreme Court making clear just which weapons they find a resonable extension to those of 1789. At least some percentage of non-shooters understand the sporting aspects of rifles, and many live in states where concealed carry has caused no extra mayhem. The Courts should be able to safely play on that let us have more than 1789 muskets (I hope). Given the circumstances, I'd be very pleased if they drew the line at cartridge repeaters with blind magazines, and I doubt we'll do much better than that. Actually, the Court won't bother to define the limits they see. At best they'll just say D.C. went too far and let D.C. try again. After several rounds of this game, we'll know what they accept. Or they could say D.C. was in bounds, and we're in trouble. This recent court ruling is both a blessing and a curse. We certainly haven't "won" anything yet.

I'll ask you, then, how do we convince non-shooters it is proper to cover AR-15s and M-16s under the 2nd? Are you certain that protecting these under the 2nd won't lead to repeal of the 2nd? Assuming the courts are in a mood to do the right thing and extend 2nd amendment protections to some modern weapons, how far do you think they should go? Mortars?, hand grenades?, flame throwers? How far do you think they can go without spurring action for a repeal of the 2nd?

Karl

asdf, You make some good points. Allow me to interject something here before we get booted to the misc. or political forum...

If you met me personally you'd be surprised from this discussion that I do not own any military-type firearms save a few old bolt action mil-surps destined for conversion to BIG GAME RIFLES. I'm a firm disbeleiver in elaborate conspiracy therories and evil plots. What I do believe in is there are people passionate about causes and there are people who do things purely to accomplish specific goals. While Sarah Brady immediately went on the anti-gun bandwagon after the Regan assasination attempt, Ragan himself remained pro-gun... until leaving office when it didn't matter to his position anymore and then made some rather disparging comments.

Today the catch phrase of anti-gun types is "I'm not against HUNTING weapons." Even the Republican front runner takes this position. However as James Zumbo recently discovered, what they consider "assault weapons" ARE in fact used for hunting and they are even more widely used for competition. Again, the factor determining a threat is not what someone has but what they are willing to do with it. No, we cannot look into anyone's mind and see evil intent but our society is built on assumed innocence and peaceful existance. Any action that supercedes that basic premise has much more sinister possibilities than gun control. It establishes the basis for taking away any constitutional right "for the good of society." Our military does it everywhere they go and our civilian authorities did it in New Orleans.

The idea that government will take care of us is the basic idea behind such acts being "acceptable." It is a flawed idea unless every citizen can be assigned personal body guards! As for the future... It will be determined by some catastrophic event(s) or the lack there of. As a civilian firearms instructor I can attest to the boom in common citizens buying guns and wanting to learn how to safely store them and USE them after events like 9-1-1 and Katrinia. I also saw a phennomonon after the school shootings you referenced. People who did not own guns wanting their kids to know about guns! I personally saw non-gun families seek out firearm instruction for their children. The reason given was they wanted them to know about guns rather than simply fear them. As I said above, the American people no matter how passionate about a cause will in the end (for the most part) subscribe to common sense actions. Just as the majority of Americans who do not hunt still hold no philosophical oposition to hunting I think the same will in the end be seen on guns. Should we be struck by some other large catastrophy - be it natrual or man made - I think you'll see even more lost ground for those who oppose ownership of the most efficient weapons for self defense. While the present situation is troubling I have not yet lost all confidence in the American people... now the politicians? That's another story!

No arguments from me on those points, oupa. I, too, believe there is strong enough support among the average American for some classes of modern firearms to be firmly under the 2nd, even with our ever more leftish courts.

After having lived in Europe a while, one aspect of shooting I will be sure to try harder at is introducing more non-shooters to target shooting. For such introductions, I'd rather it not be on range where guys are blazing away with ARs; such scenes are a bit much for those intimidated by guns. In the end, showing those not already shooters what a pleasant afternoon target shooting can make is the sort of work we shooters can do to provide the support we need among non-shooters.

Oh, yeah, I don't own any self-loaders either. I'm a tight-wad, and I'm lazy. The urge to keep squeezing that trigger on my buddy's AR is too great to keep the cost within my limits, and there's too many parts to clean afterwards, as compared to my single shots. The AR sure is a hoot to shoot, though.

quote:

The AR sure is a hoot to shoot, though.

And there in lies the saving grace! The more who realize it the better our over-all situation will be!

One of the problems with the second Amendment is the fact that language has changed. A comment was made earlier about the militia lacking training which caused problems in the War of 1812. The term "well regulated" did in fact mean WELL TRAINED in the language of the time.
There are many references as to exactly what the militia is including The Militia Act of 1792, Title 10 of the U.S.C. and in fart, the Supreme court did rule on weaponry for the militia in the case U.S. v Miller 1939.
The following I gleaned from the GOA website.

OK, lets discuss the 2nd Amendment. Good idea. It is my carefully considered opinion that the KEY WORDs are MILITIA and OF THE PEOPLE.

1. The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The act stated:
"Every citizen...[shall] provide himself with a good musket, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints...."

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.

U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW (emphasis mine) to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipmemnt....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard."

Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the Untied States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.....

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)
(BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.)

More on Title 10 of the U.S. Code

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 302, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and

(2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or of the Naval Militia.

Now it took me all of about ten minutes to find all that information. Just go to the Gun Owners of America's website and look for their firearms fact sheet. There's 24 pages of good information there.

I plan on making copies of the above and sending each of my representatives their own personal copy. Feel free to do the same. Maybe, if they get flooded with as many letters with the above as Zumbo's sponsers did on his major foot in mouth problem, the idiots just might get a message. Leave our guns alone.
Paul B.


COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

The Miller case is often cited by the antis as a victory for them. In fact, it was a severe defeat. Miller had, I think it was, a sawn-off shotgun. He failed, though, to provide evidence to the Court that such weapons were a reasonable militia weapon. (One source says Miller died before he had a chance to finish his case.) Regardless, Miller's weapon was one that had seen much use in the trenches of WW-I, so there is reason to believe he might have won the case.

Regardless, the Court came down squarely on the side of the modern NRA interpretation, that it is military, not sporting arms, that are protected:

quote:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reseving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Milita according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

Paul B and 308Sako, I can't recall reading what the definition of "arms" meant at that time. Was it limited solely to muskets and pistols?

Under the law, I'm not in a militia, being too old.

Hanging an argument for private ownership on a definition of militia that is restrictive might have unintended consequences.

The following quote should leave little doubt about Mr. Jefferson's opinion on the matter.

"“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears it's citizens, you have freedom."
-Thomas Jefferson

Daks, the Supreme Court recognized the "guarentee" in the 2nd, which is worded to the "people," of which you remain. It also recognized the class of weapons protected are those suitable for militia duty. Whether the current Courts will agree is one of many questions. The Courts have flip-flopped many times over the years, bending to their perception of the public's will.

Here is a link to the text of the decision. It is a long read, but interesting.
George
Decision

FROM asdf.......

quote:

Given the circumstances, I'd be very pleased if they drew the line at cartridge repeaters with blind magazines, and I doubt we'll do much better than that.

quote:

......I'd rather it not be on range where guys are blazing away with ARs; such scenes are a bit much for those intimidated by guns.

Perhaps such as yourself? Since you also said.....

quote:

...I don't own any self-loaders...

Oh, I get it, YOU can have what you like and want, but throw your buddy, who wants to shoot a different type of firearm, under the bus.

You would give Sarah Brady a wet dream. Please stay in Europe. We have enough sheep here.

wingnut: you're as bad as an anti who's trying to parse the text of the 2nd. Why must you take what I said out of context? You seem to want to ignore "given the circumstances" and all it implied just as antis ignore "the right of the people."

I'm hardly intimidated by semi-autos. People who've never shot and are hesitant to do so can be, and I made that context perfectly clear.

I was also perfectly clear as to why I don't own semi-autos: they're expensive to buy, expensive to feed, and take a longer time to clean. They're fun, but not worth the bother.

I ask you to point out where I ever said I think semi's should be banned. You won't find it because I never said such. I do think the Supreme Court may permit such bans, but I didn't say I approved of that.

It's gun owner's like you, who warp the words of other gun owners, that generate the fratricide Sarah needs to do her work. Sarah needs your type. She needs to paint the owners of semi's as crude boors, and you sound as if you fit her bill perfectly.

Taken from the Outdoor Wire

In what my friend Michael Bane headlined "HELL FREEZES OVER!" an Appellate Court panel has struck down the District of Columbia's 1976 handgun ban.

The court dismissed the argument that the right to bear arms was inferred to individuals, but specific to militias, in effect saying the Second Amendment could not be defined outside the context of the Bill of Rights and, thus, protected an "individual's rights" to keep and bear arms. Or as they said in their opinion "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."

The majority opinion sums up the point as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

And the majority opinion concludes, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, with Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith assenting. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, opining she does not believe the Second Amendment bestows and individual right based on Supreme Court precedent requiring that result. She also believed the District of Columbia to hold an "exceptional" position, allowing such a ban legal, as it was "not a state." Silberman and Griffith dismissed that position.

So what's next? Legal experts say the review process will continue. The District of Columbia has shown a willingness to fight for the ban - most likely until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

Firearms advocates and constitutional observers applaud the decision. Anti-firearms groups are just as emphatic in their condemnation of the ruling.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence called the ruling "judicial activism at its worst." Had the panel found in favor of the ban, Helmke most likely would have praised the panel for their interpretation of judicial precedent. As they say, one man's meat is another's poison.

The Violence Policy Center didn't sugarcoat their feelings, calling the ruling: "â€|a dream come true for America's gun lobby and gunmakers." Going on to say "it may mark the beginning of a long, national nightmare from which we will never recover as a nation."

Right.

For historical perspective we should remember this case (Parker v. District of Columbia) was brought by individuals who wanted the right to own firearms in their homes in the District of Columbia for personal protection, not to sell firearms or use them for the terrorization of the citizenry - that was already happening.

They wanted the right to use a firearm for self-protection restored to them after it had been taken away by a District of Columbia government they felt was incapable of protecting them. They didn't ask for any special rights or standing..

Judge Silberman's opinion brings a pro-individual rights interpretation back to the Second Amendment, extending the scope to definitively include individual gun owners. That's clearly in conflict with the older 1939 ruling (U.S. v Miller) that has been quoted as the interpretive precedent for the limitation on ownership.

Silberman's ruling projects the logic of rights into the technological advances from colonial to modern times.

As precedent, Silberman cited the First Amendment's concept of free speech being extended to modern communication devices (unknown to the founding generation) and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure being extended to telephone conversations. The Second Amendment, Silberman reasons, should protect the right to own the modern day equivalent of the colonial pistol.

Silberman has built what legal observers say is a pretty difficult interpretation to reverse, basing his finding on the Second Amendment on the interpretations of the other Amendments.

In the opinion, Silberman states "The Amendment does not protect the 'right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people'."

What a concept.

quote:

That's clearly in conflict with the older 1939 ruling (U.S. v Miller) that has been quoted as the interpretive precedent for the limitation on ownership.

I wish I had here my book which covered the Miller case. Michael Bane's comment on it differs from what I remember of it. As I read it, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right was to individual citizens, not just active duty militiamen. They did use the militia clause to limit the type of weapons protected. Miller failed to even try to show his weapon could reasonably be taken to be one a soldier might use. The Court seemed to be quite clear that citizens were the ones granted the right. I have on my PC one quote from the ruling that seems particularly damaging to Sarah:

quote:

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

quote:

Given the circumstances, I'd be very pleased if they drew the line at cartridge repeaters with blind magazines

Please stay in Europe. We already have Zumbo, and quite enough others like him and you, to contend with here.

quote:

Originally posted by Daks:
Under the law, I'm not in a militia, being too old.

Hanging an argument for private ownership on a definition of militia that is restrictive might have unintended consequences.

Not necessarily so. If you have served in the military, you are still in until age 65. After all, somebody's got to be officers and non-coms.
Now me, I'll be 69 come my next birthday. I still do have the stregth to pull a trigger.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
The Miller case is often cited by the antis as a victory for them. In fact, it was a severe defeat. Miller had, I think it was, a sawn-off shotgun. He failed, though, to provide evidence to the Court that such weapons were a reasonable militia weapon. (One source says Miller died before he had a chance to finish his case.) Regardless, Miller's weapon was one that had seen much use in the trenches of WW-I, so there is reason to believe he might have won the case.

Regardless, the Court came down squarely on the side of the modern NRA interpretation, that it is military, not sporting arms, that are protected:

quote:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reseving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Milita according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

Paul B and 308Sako, I can't recall reading what the definition of "arms" meant at that time. Was it limited solely to muskets and pistols?

No. reread the section from my post placed below.

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)

Note the emphasis. I cannot see it meaning anything less that all able bodied members of the militia should now, by law yet, have that M-16 in their closet.

Further confirmation comes from the Senate Subcommittee report, whis is in part posted below.

U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW (emphasis mine) to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipmemnt....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard."

I think this should answer your questions.
Paul B.

wingnut, I realize your ability to read may be limited, but when I say "given the circumstances," it's your responsibility to see what I meant by "the cicumstances." I spelled out the circumstances as I see them, namely, that it is quite possible the Courts will rule we can own nothing more than muskets under the 2nd. They might also rule in favor of leftish thought, that we can only access our arms if in the active militia. Either way, your semi's are history, buddy.

I've also taken the time to spell out a few reasons (and my hope that) the Courts may rule in our favor. You may want to sit around angrily spluttering "no comprise" and other such useless phrases, but if the majority of Americans in 2007 don't see it that way, you loose. Given that I see it likely the Courts would allow a ban on the current crop of semi's, I really would be pleased if we were allowed to keep semi's with blind magazines, for that's better than no semi's at all. I worry, though, that all semi's may go. Yes, there is reason to hope it will be otherwise, but it's only hope; there's no guarentees.

Jumping to the conclusion that I either want semi's banned or think such bans are justified, is wrong. Jumping on me and practically calling me un-American is foolish; you only alienate an ally. In fact, fools like you are almost enough to make me sympathize with a ban on clip feed semi's; I'm not sure blubbering, irrational fools should be allowed to own them.

So there. [I stick my tongue out at you.] {Moderators, how come we don't have a smiley for that?}

Paul B, yes, I agree. My earlier question was meant to be: did "arms" then mean small arms or all armaments in existance? The modern dictionary says all weapons, which makes it difficult for a modern court to rule anything but an arbitrary limit on what can be sanctioned today.

quote:

I realize your ability to read may be limited........

..............fools like you..........

........blubbering, irrational fools

It's a good thing you are in Europe. You have forgotten what it is to be a REAL American. Talking to a REAL American that way in person would get your ass kicked.

All I hear from you is "baaaa, baaaaaa".

You have already given up, without a fight.

I was a sworn, paid, full-time law enforcement officer for nearly one-third of my life. I currently serve in a civilian capacity, employed by a private company under contract to the Department of Homeland Security. I have told my "brothers behind the badge" that I WILL NOT enforce a ban or a pick-up order, and that I WILL defend, with whatever means necessary, anyone upon whom they try to enforce such orders.

I WILL FIGHT. When I say NO COMPROMISE, that is EXACTLY what I mean. When I say "From my cold, dead hands!", that is EXACTLY what I mean.

Such an order, issued in my presence, will be construed as a direct assault on the Constitution that I have sworn to uphold, and will be met with all possible resistance, and will be considered grounds for a new revolution.

Even if you are foolish enough to return, and that order is issued against you. Even if you are willing to give up your rights, I am not willing that you be allowed to do so, as it would serve to embolden those bent on destruction of the rights of all, and would jeopardize the rights of others who were NOT willing to forfeit them voluntarily, as you are.

My guns will not be taken while I breathe. Neither will yours, if I can prevent it.

I realize that I have literally placed my life on the line, simply by saying what I have said and by writing this. I am willing to do so, in order to give pause to those who would make us subjects, like you, rather than free citizens.

You are wrong, but am still willing to defend your right.

Will you do the same?

(A friend of mine pointed out to me that this post seemed to convey a message which I did not intend. I have edited the text to clarify.)

quote:

YOU ... throw your buddy, who wants to shoot a different type of firearm, under the bus.

You would give Sarah Brady a wet dream. Please stay in Europe. We have enough sheep here.

Yeah, right, wingnut, since when do REAL American Men get to call fellow Americans names like "sheep" or Sarah's wet dream and request they stay out of their own homeland? You started the name calling, buddy.

If you want to extend an apology here on this forum, I will as well. Real men do such things. You started the name calling. You must start the apologizing. (Now would be better than later.)

The first Circuit decision, if and when heard en banc, will almost certainly affirm the original panel's. That is what happens nearly all the time. If the Supremes agree to hear the case-- by no means a sure thing-- they will almost certainly craft the narrowest ruling possible. That is what appellate courts are supposed to do. It is pretty hard to handicap this one because we haven't had a significant Second Amendment case before the court since the 1930's. (A case involving the Federal government's ability to regulate the ownership of Tommy guns.) Having said that, the scutlebutt among many criminal litigators is that any ruling from the Supremes will applied to Federal jurisdictions only (eg: the District of Columbia, National Parks, etc.) and not to the states, which would leave the states free to regulate firearms more tightly than some of us might like.
The other wild card in this is Scalia. I would not be worried about "the Democrats" somehow screwing with our rights to the ownership of firearms; I would be far more concerned with Mr.Framers-Original-Intent. Anyone out there who practices criminal law as I do (I'm a prosecutor) is painfully aware of how the court, with Scalia's opinion, turned the world of hearsay upside down with the Crawford decision. The result of which is that not only must prosecutors and law enforcement officers do a lot of things very differently than we did, we also didn't get a heck of a lot of specifac guidance from the court as to what we can do going forward. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if Nino writes an opinion (hopefully in the dissent) which argues that the Framers only intended for the Second Amendment to allow the private ownership of flintlock muskets and pistols.

quote:

I'd be very pleased if they drew the line at cartridge repeaters with blind magazines

Again, "baaaaaa, baaaaaaa".

quote:

You have already given up, without a fight.

You will get no apology from me unless and until I see that that is not correct.

You owe an apology to the shooting community and to every American willing to defend YOUR rights, endowed by your Creator, and gauranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but which you seem to have decided are not worth fighting to keep.

quote:

Those who will sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security, and will lose both.

Benjamin Franklin

wihntr, while I'm not a lawyer, from time to time I like to follow the legal debate on the 2nd. Unfortunately, the antis have assembled just enough valid legal arguments that, combined with what public support the antis have,
the Supreme Court could go which ever way they choose with out looking incompetent. I'm sure they don't want to rule on this one, because it is so volatile an issue. That the NRA hasn't picked a case and pressed it to the top suggests to me they are as unsure (worried?) about the prospects as I am. Even if the worse came, and no protections are extended, it will be a long time for (most of) the states to tighten up the noose.

butchloc, another PM sent.

wingnut, upon reflection, I find my words were excessively harsh and too direct an insult given your words. I regret this, and I extend my apology.

My comments on reading ability were, of course, in response to your taking my words out of context. Were I to loose a leg in a car wreck, I could honestly say I was very pleased to keep one leg. By your "reasoning," I would be saying I had no desire to keep both legs.

My other disparaging remarks were in response to your "cold, dead hands" and "new revolution" lines, which may work with some NRA members, but only serve to make non-shooters more nervous and thereby more inclined to support the antis. In seeking to uphold the rights of shooters, I prefer to discuss calmly the issue with my co-workers who are antis, to try to chip away at their convictions. I also try to take non-shooters not yet antis out for target shooting. This is the best way I know to make them allies; a shooting buddy once did so with me.

Lastly, should the Courts go against the 2nd, I see no need for you to go out in your blaze of glory. The highest court in the land is that of Public Opinion, and that ultimately is what the US constitution is all about. Even without the 2nd, the antis can't disarm us unless the majority wants this. I hope you consider this when you choose your catch phrases.

quote:

The highest court in the land is that of Public Opinion, and that ultimately is what the US constitution is all about.

That statement is ABSOLUTELY 180 degrees WRONG !!!

The Constitution and the representative republic form of government are in place for the express purpose of negating the type of mob rule implied. They are to guarantee that certain fundamental rights are never abrogated, regardless of the opinion of the governing class or the majority of the electorate!!!!

quote:

Even without the 2nd, the antis can't disarm us unless the majority wants this.

It matters not one speck what the antis or the majority wants. The RIGHT to own the means of self-protection, and the means to resist tyranny is absolute, and “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED†!!!!!!! That right is one of those “endowed by the Creator†referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

You say that I took your words out of context. I say that either you did not really read mine, or you do not believe them.

I LONG ago stopped trying to appease with soft words those who would deny that the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment are about individual rights. The time for soft-pedaling and political correctness is long past. When I speak or write to those who have made up their minds that they are either for us or against us, I do not use "catch phrases". I mean exactly what my words say. What I said in my posts above has been said here, and on other forums, many times before.

A desire to keep your rights is not enough. To make that desire become reality, you must be willing to take action. There is always a cost for such action. You must be willing to pay that cost.

I fully realize the cost of the words I have spoken and written, and also realize that, if the outcome of the political fight over private ownership of firearms is revolution, when it is all over, I may not ( as a matter of fact, probably won't ) be here to see the outcome, or enjoy it if successful. I sincerely hope that it does not come to that. I take the stand that I have for my children, my grandchildren, for you and your children, and for all generations to come.

I am passionate in my belief; I offer no apology for being so. If your words sprang from a similar, but differently directed passion, I would not accept your apology, but would celebrate and congratulate the strength of your belief. Since the conciliatory tone of your apology seems to match your approach to the preservation of the Second Amendment, I will not refuse it. At least you are consistent.

I, too, try to recruit as many new shooters as possible. Once they are started in, and can see the enjoyment to be gained from shooting, I try and make gun OWNERS of as many of them as possible, as quickly as possible. Investing your hard-earned money into an object and then hearing that someone may attempt to TAKE it from you seems to stir the blood and engender resistance.

I don't hesitate to declare my beliefs and intentions here on the AR forums, sometimes bluntly, because I know that this is already a community of shooters and gun owners. They (you) know or should know where I am coming from.

Now, if the fight is lost in the political arena, and the order comes, as Dianne Feinstein once said, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.", what will you do?

What if the pick-up order is only for semi-automatics with detachable magazines? What will YOU do?

I have publicly stated my intention and my plan. Will you fight beside me?

Your previous statements lead me to believe that you may not be willing to do that. If I am wrong, please say so, to immediately clarify my misunderstanding so I can apologize for it