|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2A Update: Rights restored! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 3/12/07 11:57:59 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section 7-2507.02 ... amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
Its about friggin' time... This is the first real federal court ruling on the Second Amendment... there have been other 2A-related rulings, but none that are explicit in explaining precisely what it means, and how it should be applied. It will probably be appealed to SCOTUS, but that is just fine with me. If SCOTUS doesn't want to rule on it, and en banc D.C. Circuit doesn't reverse it, then it will stand. I'm not a betting man, but if the Supreme Court decides to hear this one, my money is on upholding it.
Now, this ruling came about as a result of a challenge to the almost complete ban of firearms in the District of Columbia. What is absolutely funny, yet sad, is that a lawyer who was fighting this ruling used the "District of Columbia isn't a state, so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them" argument. What a laugh. Let's just see who we can deny constitutional rights to, mmmkay? I mean really, if you want to say that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC, then why not throw out the First Amendment too? Or the Fourth? Or the Fifth? Judge Henderson (the dissenting judge) agreed with that logic apparently! It seems to me that the Constitution applies to the Entire Country, not just each of the fifty states.
D.C. Circuit Court:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| < "Swing Dancing to Snoop Dogg" | "Thoughts on Rudy '08" > |
|
|
|