D.C. Circuit Upholds Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, because

OK so you disagree with her legal interpretation (and I cant say one way or the other not having read the WHOLE decision)....

Now is that mean you can call her a cretin?...becasue [sic] you dont [sic] agree?
Click to expand...

No, because under her pathetic rationalization, the ENTIRE Bill of Rights would be a nullity in any US territory not a "State." That's DC, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa - get the picture?
 
O yes sir I get it, thank you for enlightening me:p I never knew anyhting about constituional law until you told me.

Anyway, havent answered whether I am a cretin too?

PS I know how to spell because, I just dont type well enough...thatnks for correcting me though.

PPS...you better read her whole dissent a little better before you extrapolate...

PPPS Her decision, regardless, is wrong under 12b6. Just so you know.

WildimzippythepinheadAlaska
 
So it this appealed? Does the Justice Department have to support DC at the next level?

What does it actually do? Can DC residents actually go out and get a gun?

Not being a legal bagel or beagle - what's next?
 
I thought the gun banners generally claimed that the 2nd Amendment merely means that the federal government can't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, thus leaving individual states free to ignore the 2nd Amendment. And yet doesn't Judge Henderson's statement mean that the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment, just like several other Amendments are, such as the 1st Amendment? Saying that because D.C. isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it also means that if D.C. were a state, the Second Amendment would apply to it; otherwise, why make the distinction between state and non-state?

I wonder (and hope so) whether Judge Henderson has opened the door to incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the states.
 
WhyteP38: While I think you have made a very good point, sort of reverse psychological; something tells me I dont think it will float; likely the fact that Judge Hendersons legal interpretation was suspect to be begin with.
 
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. :)

I have only given the opinion a cursory reading, but the majority opinion, if upheld, would simply allow D.C. residents to possess handguns in their home. No more, no less. Granted that's far better than the status quo.

The opinion is great if it gets people to read more court cases and try to understand both sides of the argument. howappealing.com sort of glosses over the dissent's use of Miller and the unfortunate precedent set by that case. Regardless, the opinion is a good read. However, I fear the majority opinion, in its reasoning, seems to be limiting what the Court actually said in Miller.

Maybe our RKBA's focus should be trying to reconstitute State Militia. :p
 
This seems like really good news. I for one, am very happy to see this ruling. Also, I agree with the point that saying DC was not a state was an attempt to get around the bill of rights altogether. Its not surprising cause this stuff happens all the time where the spirit of the constitution is violated.

We are all on the same side and it would be nice if we could use our brainpower to highlight what is good or bad about this decision.

I don't think I could stand reading the whole legal brief, even if I knew where where to find it. If one of you guys can understand legalspeak and will actually read the documents, it would be great if you could outline some of the relevant points.
 
I echo the feeling of freedom when i heard this on the news. I couldn't believe it, one went in our favor. Let's pray for more to come of this.
 
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. the way I read it they dumped the law the whole law. as being unconstitutional. were the law is mute, there is no law. but this doesn't hold water if they file for appeal and get a stay.
 
While I think you have made a very good point, sort of reverse psychological; something tells me I dont think it will float; likely the fact that Judge Hendersons legal interpretation was suspect to be begin with.
Click to expand...
True; however, even if a higher court finds Henderson's legal interpretation to be suspect, the higher court would also have to find the other judges' contrary interpretation suspect if the higher court reverses the decision. Such findings that both sides are wrong do happen. Still, to do so is often very difficult and can leave a new finding that itself has weaknesses and gaps.

I think the majority's reasoning in this case will be difficult to successfully counter, and I think Henderson's dissent has promise to be more helpful to pro-gun rights than harmful.
 
OK, the million dollar question is: does this overturn the DC gun ban? I would think so, but I am not well versed in legalese. Anybody got a take on this?
 
This is what I looked like when I read this news: :eek: :D :cool:

I can't wait to see how this pans out over the next few days/weeks. So happy to hear this outcome and I surely hope that if it goes to the SCOTUS it upholds the RKBA.

/Would be nice if they could sneak the 86 MG ban in there too.
 
Ouch my brain hurts... Too much legalese.

From what is being reported on T.V. it seems to me that it does overturn the ban. Take that for what you will...





Hey, wait just a sec! I'm a jerk and I take offense to being compared to castro!
 
I am happy about this but...

Sounds to me like a bunch of "activist judges" enforcing their own will over the will of the people. At least that is what it is called when it is something with which the right wing disagrees. Didn't the people vote in these laws by a majority vote.

Personally I think it is about time though and I hope this will make some people who love to yell about "activist judges" to shut up and start thinking before they run off at the mouth.

I think the judges are right to strike down this unjust law but I wish more people would remember that when something they personally agree with is declared unconstitutional.
 
Yes

Let me try to clarify for my fellow hard working good Americans (ie NOT lawyers) ;) . I am not a lawyer but an interested party.


The decision DOES overturn the gun ban in DC. Do not be surprised though if an injunction is issued basically temporarily stopping the decision from taking place until all legal avenues are exhausted. This is a pretty clear victory for 2A rights though.

From here, there are still a couple of hurdles to cross potentially.

1. This decision was made only by a three judge panel of the court. One of the parties (probably the losers in this case) could request the entire 12th court hear the case. The case would be re-heard in front of the whole court.

2. If appealed by either party, it could goto the Supreme court. The Supreme court has to agree to hear the case, however, which it has been reluctant to do with 2A cases for some reason. If they do not take it, the appeals court ruling stands I believe. If they do take the case, it most likely is going to come down to flip flopping justice Kennedy.

Likely votes for the overturning of the gun ban:

Scalia
Thomas
Roberts
Alito

Against:
All the libs.

Wildcard:

Kennedy (and potential deciding vote)

I do want to mention however that recent appointees like Roberts and Alito are unknowns mostly. Alito had some very encouraging pro-2a cases in his background, but justices can become very schizofrentic (sp?) once they reach the high court.

Any scumbag lawyers feel free to step in and correct me if needed or add on to what I just described. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top