DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

It hasn't been reported on yet in mainstream news, but here's a copy of the Court of Appeals's ruling.

Quote:

"[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."

Talk about a "no shit" ruling.

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by paraphrased

Judge Henderson's dissenting opinion makes clear that she would conclude that the Second Amendment does not bestow an individual right. But her other main point is that the majority's assertion to the contrary constitutes nothing more than dicta because the Second Amendment's protections, whatever the entail, do not extend to the District of Columbia, because it is not a State.

By saying that the Second Amendment doesn't establish an individual right, the interpretation of it is in the context of militias. This perspective, as established by Henderson declares that the right to bear arms exists so that militiamen can't be denied their arms when called into service for the militia, but since the District isn't a state and can't have a militia, no such right exists in the District of Columbia.

Does the Second Amendment establish an individual or public right?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Besides, Waco went down because the ATF fucked up, not Karesh.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

why would restricting people to bear arms restrict the formation of a militia?

Because militias need guns to exist. Otherwise they're a bunch of dicks running around the woods with swords and not AR-15s.

Quote:

Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day.

I have to disagree with you there. One of the important necessities of the 2nd Ammendment is equality of arms. If a citizenry is forced to arm themselves with inferior weapons, then the balance of power is shifted overwhelmingly in the favor of government militaries or any invading army. Without an effective ability to resist, the 2nd Ammendment doesn't mean much.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

As for needing arms so you can form a milita against the government just remember most of the successful revolutions historicly have been completed with rebels/freedome fighters using weapons significantly less advanced than the current people in power.

That's not true at all. The French Revolution was a failure, and they had the military on their side. On the other hand, the American Revolution was fought by men with much better firearms than the british. The Brown Bess was designed to be manufactured, not as a high-performance firearm. In fact, military conventions of the time didn't demand high-performance firearms because volleys were supposed to eliminate the necessity of accuracy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

DC has one of the worst crime (specifically murder) rates in the country because it has a large contingent of poor blacks that are neck deep in the drug trade.

I like to think of it as poetic justice. (for the Fed not black people)

How ya doing, buddy?

I like the idea that the district of an entity which has narrow-mindedly pushed the unconditional waging of a war on drugs since the Reagan administration suffers the worst of its runoff.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?