Washington D.C. Gun Ban Stuck down!
 

More news as it comes in.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html

Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban
Friday, March 09, 2007

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has struck down the District of Columbia's long-standing ban on handguns.

There is a God

God has made guns so that the believers can go out and kill the non believers.

Cool beans. :D

I can only think of one person in DC that would make a good target:

"Marion Barry Is the Focus Of a Federal Tax Probe

By Carol D. Leonnig and Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; Page A01

D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry is under investigation for failing to file federal income tax returns and pay his taxes, according to two sources close to the probe.

The sources said authorities have been in plea negotiations with Barry (D-Ward 8) to settle issues stemming from tax returns dating to 1998. The discussions follow an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, they said. It was not immediately clear how much money Barry could owe in taxes and potential penalties.

Barry, 69, declined to comment yesterday. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office also declined to comment. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive stage of the investigation.
....
That would put Barry back in the courthouse where he stood trial in 1990 on drug charges. Barry was serving his third term as mayor when he was arrested that year after being caught on an FBI videotape smoking crack cocaine. He ultimately was convicted of a single misdemeanor drug charge and served a six-month prison term. After his release, he revived his political career and was elected mayor a fourth time in 1994."

I wonder who is more stupid, the voters in DC or the voters in New Orleans.

The NRA (and I'm a life member) cannot afford having the Supreme Court hear this case. Assuming it does rule in favor of the individual right, it would mean the vast majority of NRA opperatives, lobyists, and executives would have to find real jobs.

Why the Supreme Court has not heard a 2nd Ammendment based case in over 70 years is a mystery. With the almost non-stop litigation surrounding it in the lower courts, how have they successfully avoided the issue for so long? Why have they?

After reading your post, I'd have to commend you on trying to throw out a viable third option. :rolleyes:

Maybe his Political oposition was on Heroin...

Jeff Higgins - 'cause the scotus gets to choose which cases it hears, and they don't want to assert that it is for all hte reasons we know it to be...

Oh, I know... really just a rhetorical question. They could settle the argument once and for all in a day. It just pisses me off no end that they will continue to play this game. The political motivations are just too obvious.

The Second Amendment is only one sentence long. It is simple and to the point. How anyone can find this one sentence to be so "open to interpretation" is beyond me.

"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."

Don't play dumb Lothar. Short descriptions of things are ALWAYS more open to interpretation than long, wordy, vetted statements. That's why contracts are so long.

The "one sentence" is a run-on and the commas are placed weirdly. If someone wanted to, they could interpret it as: "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, as it is necessary to the security of a free State."

I personally don't interpret it that way. Like all things in the Constitution, one has to bear in mind that it was not written by a team of lawyers and grammar experts.

Furthermore, I'm not sure DC is better off without a gun ban. Most of its residents are gun-fearing liberals anyway, so nothing will change much. The criminals will still be the only ones with guns, but now they'll be legal. Some of them anyway. I don't really see that as an improvement.

Hallelujah!!!

Now...does this federal court have jurisdiction over IL???

The real mis-interpretation is the notion that a militia is needed only in time of war. I believe the framers intended the militia as a means of keeping an out-of-control U.S. government in check as much as any outside invader.

+1. About frigging time. Now the law abiding white boys living there can legally defend their homes.

Now lets go after NYC and Chicago on their silly weapons policy's.

Joeaksa - Racist

"Lets" ???? What have you done to reverse the ruling? Gimmee a break!

I love the ruling, but some of the support(ers) around here we can do without. :rolleyes:

Good. 'bout friggin' time. Hopefully this will result in a repeal of the stupid-ass "assault weapons ban" here in CA.

As I understand it, the debate was over whether or not the right to keep & bear arms was an INDIVIDUAL right or a collective right (as in the case of a militia). Based on the exact wording of the amendment, it's perhaps understandable that some people might interpret it as a right only for armed militias to exist, rather than for the individual citizen to keep/bear arms.

For one, I'm very pleased with this interpretation. . . I might even celebrate by blowing off a few rounds this weekend.

FINALLY some good news today.

You need to interpret a sentence written in the 1700s using the language as it was used and understood in that time period.

Taking a modern understanding of words and grammar, then trying to say that the meaning of some earlier language is "unclear" because the usage is not consistent with modern usage is just plain silly -- but this is precisely what those seeking to destroy the Second Amendment try to do.

It looks like you've bought into their game, hook-line-and-sinker!

Exactly. The Second Ammendment stands on the strength of the second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is the limitation it places on governmental power; the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " is merely an attempt to justify the need to enact the second part. If the true intention was " the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", that is precisely what it would say. There is none of the gun grabbers' hoped-for ambiguity in those words. Taken at face value, in the common usage of our language in that day, it is very clear. The amount of supporting correspondence between the framers of the Constitution that supports their notion of an individual right is overwhelming.