TexasCHLforum.com

This is great. I found it on the High Road.

from Macsmind Blog, http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/

Polishing the Glock in DC - DC Court upholds Second Amendment
Posted by Macranger on March 9th, 2007

Another victory for the 2nd Amendment, via How Appealing:

“BREAKING NEWS — Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights: You can access today’s lengthy D.C. Circuit ruling at this link.


According to the majority opinion, “[T]he phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.� The majority opinion sums up its holding on this 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.

The majority opinion also rejects the argument that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a State. 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.�

Here is an interesting view about a the posible timeline for a decision by TSCOTUS

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007 ... 1173454696

Volokh thinks it will be decided just before the 2008 elections.

"SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the
district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the
District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second
Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment
4
(“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed�) does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse."

ABSOLUTELY COOL!!!

Reading the opinion is kind of long (I'm only on page 14) but very edifying.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf

Page 18 and 19

"In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.� That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth
Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people�—indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between “the people,� on the one hand, and “the
states,� on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
people� in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
elsewhere in the Bill of Rights."

Everyone, get ready for the showdown of our lives. We've got all the chips in the pot if/when this goes to the SCOTUS.

gmckinl wrote:Everyone, get ready for the showdown of our lives. We've got all the chips in the pot if/when this goes to the SCOTUS.

Amen to that. I do like how the last two Supreme Court appointments went. That should help our side if this issue ends up there.

Just a couple of thoughts about 2nd Amendment cases making it to the supreme court.

(I heard this at a conference a couple of years ago.)


The supreme court may not be taking 2nd A. cases because one of the members knows our side would loose and he is protecting us from the loss.
If you look at some of the wacky decisions out of the that court you should will expect anything.

If the case does get to the court and we loose, it doesn't mean we give up the fight.
We just continue to focus on the legislatures of the several states and the United States.

Did anyone notice the list of players on the brief?

On our side:
Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott; The Second Amendment Foundation; Congress of Racial Equality; American Civil Rights Union; National Rifle Association

Against us:
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The fight isn't over, but this is absolutely huge! I'm reading the 75 page opinion, including the dissenting opinion by Karen LeCraft Henderson.

Chas.

I have to wonder when the Supreme Court will have to finally give this issue the time of day...

Everybody else and their mother has chimed in on the individual right angle, and a few other factors that make the Second Amendment once again, exactly what its supposed to mean...

What could they possibly be waiting for???

Or is it, "do they really have to rule, or give an opinion?"

Personally, I would like to have the "bookend" opinion laid out before any U.N. international "treaty", garbage, deal is done...That thing has been hanging out there waiting for much too long...I would like that to become a moot point...

Man, this is makes my eyes water. Well said. I thin kI'll print thi out and pin it on my wall

jimlongley wrote:Page 18 and 19

"In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.� That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth
Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people�—indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between “the people,� on the one hand, and “the
states,� on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
people� in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
elsewhere in the Bill of Rights."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The fight isn't over, but this is absolutely huge! I'm reading the 75 page opinion, including the dissenting opinion by Karen LeCraft Henderson.

Chas.

I'm reading it too. I'm up to the dissenting opinion, but will read that tonight.

I'm going to the range this afternoon to celebrate. After all, tonight is family night at our range - my wife can shoot for free on my lane

I just read the whole thing. Excellently written majority opinion that gives a roadmap to the Supremes if they choose to take it. The dissenting opinion is based on whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state. That is a very weak reed for the antis to rely on.

whether or not the 2nd applies to DC because it isn't a state

That is pretty convoluted reasoning. Then we can quarter troops in their houses too, right?

This is great for those law-abiding folks still left in DC. The only way I'd go back there is armed to the teeth.

A few years ago, we finally convinced my wife's grandmother to move from there when we arrived home to her house and as we came in the back door, a burglar was hauling a load out the front door.

She had lived there for 60 years...way back then it was a nice place to live. (Her next-door neighbor for many years was Pearl Bailey).