For some reason, liberals don’t appreciate “activist courts” when they go and do something like this:
"In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-09-2007/0004543259&EDATE=
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterLooks like you've found the hot topic for this weekends news cycle.
For some reason, liberals don’t appreciate “activist courts” when they go and do something like this:
"In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-09-2007/0004543259&EDATE=
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMaybe it just means they realize that illegal guns are so easy to get the law doesn't make a differance one way or the other.
For some reason, liberals don’t appreciate “activist courts” when they go and do something like this:
"In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-09-2007/0004543259&EDATE=
It is against the law makers motto though (always make laws that makes MORE criminals, not less).
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI find it odd that a right winger who supports criminal laws against the possession of marijuana on the ground that it poses a danger to society would oppose laws regulating firearms.
For some reason, liberals don’t appreciate “activist courts” when they go and do something like this:
"In a ground-breaking opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today overturned the D.C. gun ban, a three-decade old prohibition on possession of firearms within the Nation's Capital."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-09-2007/0004543259&EDATE=
However, I personally agree with this court and find government restrictions on the right to possess "normal" weapons in your home to protect it as a violation of an individual's fundamental rights. I do think that the decision is overriding the clear finding in US v. Miller, a 1939 US Supreme Court case and is contrary to many other Federal court decisions. I think it is very likely the case will wind up before the US Supreme Court.
Which will reverse though they'll probably duck the issue by declaring that the District of Columbia isn't a State for 2nd Amendment purposes.
Originally posted by no1marauderI never thought of that. That's a great way to for them to avoid making a decision that effects the entire nation. Also, could they duck even taking the case on the grounds that D.C. isn't a state?
I find it odd that a right winger who supports criminal laws against the possession of marijuana on the ground that it poses a danger to society would oppose laws regulating firearms.
However, I personally agree with this court and find government restrictions on the right to possess "normal" weapons in your home to protect it as a violatio ...[text shortened]... issue by declaring that the District of Columbia isn't a State for 2nd Amendment purposes.
You really think the new court will reverse it?
2 edits
Originally posted by MerkNo, individuals in DC still have a right to go to court.
I never thought of that. That's a great way to for them to avoid making a decision that effects the entire nation. Also, could they duck even taking the case on the grounds that D.C. isn't a state?
You really think the new court will reverse it?
Yes, I think they will reverse for the reason that the reasoning in this decision would strike down virtually every gun control law in the nation. That result would be fine with me, but I don't think the Court will have the political will to do so (and the case would be decided in the next term right before the 2008 elections!). The dissent relies a lot on the "DC isn't a State for 2nd Amendment purposes" and it's a way to avoid the consequences without abandoning the conservative philosophical position. They'll take it I think.
EDIT: The full decision and dissent is available from a link from the original site. The dissent's discussion of DC not being a State for 2nd Amendment purposes starts at p. 66.
Of course, a Supreme Court decision along the lines I've stated only kicks the can down the road a little bit; I'm sure that there are or will be State cases files making the same arguments. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to deal with the substantive issue (or redeal with it since US v. Miller seems clear enough - though that did deal with a sawed off shotgun, not a handgun).