D.C. Circuit Upholds Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottom line: action rather than debate is needed, as follows:

1. Someone needs to raise the constitutional issue in a place like Chicago.
2. Every gun owner should dedicate some time to the most effective means of stopping anti gun politics by things such as "take a liberal to shoot day", take a media member to shoot day, outreach to the gay, latino, transgendered and immigrant communities and most importantly, stop the silly frothing at the mouth tirades....gun owners must TURN MAINSTREAM, or at least, we must police our own ranks to remove the screechers and that haters so that the general public realizes that a gun is just a tool, not the penis extension of the angry white male.
3. Educated and reasonable letters, letters, letters to everyone involved in the issue from politicians to the media. No more slogans like "from my cold dead fingers"...no more JBTs or sheeple. No morte bs staistics...this is a policy debate and that requires thinking about the policies, negotiations and compromise...yes comprimise....

We have to start working.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The time comes when you have to decide whether you're more like General McClellan or more like General Grant. You're either standing around talking about the big battle, or you're leading your troops into the big battle.

It strikes me that the NRA, which I support, may have two motivations in not pressing this battle. One motivation is understandable, although I'd say it's overly cautious: They don't completely trust SCOTUS. But as far as SCOTUS goes, it's doubtful you'll find a better time for this particular battle. The outcome isn't certain, but I'd hate for the big battle to come after someone like Hillary appoints a new judge. And perhaps the NRA sometimes forgets that it may not be the one to press the battle. What happens if an anti-gun group finds the case of its dreams and presses the battle? Seems to me that the time and the case to press is now.

The other motivation is ... well, decide what you think of it yourselves. But what happens to NRA membership, and the money it brings in, if the 2nd A. is found to be an individual right and is incorporated to the states through the 14th A.?
 
Guys, let's not lose sight of the ball, here. We're winning! The D.C. Court of Appeals has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, then any restriction on the free exercise of that right will have to pass a "strict scrutiny" test. In other words, in court, the government will have to show a "compelling governmental interest" as to why the benefit of the law outweighs the rights of the individual. This is the same test that they use on the 1st Amendment for free speech/press issues!!!

Right now, anything could happen. There is a lot of uncertainty. The SCOTUS could reverse, and if they do, they will do so in direct contrast to a VERY well-reasoned majority opinion from the D.C. Circuit (the SCOTUS very rarely ever does this). OR, the Court could simply uphold the ruling, but then decide the "strict scrutiny" standard in favor of the ban (this is VERY likely). But, right now, we've just won a major battle. For the first time in a LONG time, a VERY high-level court in this country has ruled that the 2nd Amendment identifies a personal, natural right - not GRANTED by the Constitution, but simply identified and protected by it. The court proved, through logic and reason, that every free citizen in America was BORN with the right to own and use weapons.

It was a very good day.
 
Legally, the important aspect of this decsion is well laid out in Antipitas post #87.

This one is a winner. Now the key is to make it a winner POLITICALLY...

So quit all this crap about Demonrats and sheeple and all the crying and whining and us vs them and go take a lefty looney, lesbian, gay, trasngendered, socialist, immigrant, reporter, or whatever shooting.

Wildinfiltrateyour"enemy"Alaska
 
Now the key is to make it a winner POLITICALLY...
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. In the mid 1980's there were few if any states that had shall issue statutes. Today there are more than 30 states that have shall issue laws.

If the Court hears and decides the individual/collective right issue regarding the 2nd amendment, we don't know who will be rejoicing. It's possible both sides will be disappointed. However, if "our" side wins and the Court finds squarely that the RKBA is an individual right, I hope we move forward cautiously so as to not lose our political gains.

Regardless of whether Roe v. Wade actually created a right to abortion or not, it sure as hell created the pro-life movement and an army of zealots. Never underestimate the power a defeat has for rallying support for a cause.
 
Thanks for noticing, Wild. Sometimes, the way these threads go, I wonder if I had posted at all!

(particularly the glaring error when referring to Blackstone and I named him Blackthorn!)
 
Folks, while we have the good news of this decision, there is also some bad news.

On March 8th (the day before the decision was published) H.R. 1399 was introduced in the house. Titled, District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. It has been sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Um, if this bill gains any traction, it will dispose of the laws that the Court has just struck down. Before you think this is any good, consider that this would render the decision of the Court moot.

In simple terms, if this passes, it will destroy the decision (and the precedent) at any point of the ongoing litigation.

This is essentially the same legislation that was tried in 2005 under Sen. Hatch (and the NRA). It's purpose is to derail any Court findings that would find for a personal right. Originally, this legislation was crafted by the NRA, and handed to Hatch, after its failed attempt to consolidate the Parker case with its own Seegars case (which was cut down due to lack of standing).

Listed below, are the names of the congressmen who belong to the committee that now has the bill. I suggest that we all contact them and let them know we disapprove of this bill. We don't need to say why - doing so may very well work against us.

The political reality here is that the Congress does not want a Supreme Court decision stating that the 2A is a protected personal right and must fall under strict scrutiny in order for the .gov to pass more onerous laws.

Introduced by Rep Ross, Mike [D AR-4]
sponsored by Rep Souder, Mark E. [R IN-3]
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Democrats
Henry A. Waxman, California, Chairman
Rep. Tom Lantos, California
Rep. Edolphus Towns, New York
Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Rep. Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Rep. John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Rep. Diane E. Watson, California
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Rep. Brian Higgins, New York
Rep. John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Rep. Bruce L. Braley, Iowa
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia
Rep. Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Rep. Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, New Hampshire
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, Connecticut
Rep. John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Rep. Peter Welch, Vermont

Republicans
Rep. Tom Davis, Virginia, Ranking Minority Member
Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana
Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Rep. John M. McHugh, New York
Rep. John L. Mica, Florida
Rep. Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Rep. Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah
Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio
Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California
Rep. Kenny Marchant, Texas
Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina
Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Rep. Brian Bilbray, California
Rep. Bill Sali, Idaho
 
Antipas,

Sorry to "nit-pick," but you can't destroy precedent. The decision is published. It's valid precedent within the D.C. Circuit. That means that, even assuming H.R. 1399 DOES get passed, it will have to pass the "strict scrutiny" test to be enforceable within the D.C. Circuit. From now on, in D.C., the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right," which is subject to "strict scrutiny."

The only way the precedent of this decision can be destroyed is if: a.) the Supreme Court finally makes a ruling on this issue (and their decision would have to overturn the case, which is not very likely), b.) the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals goes back and reverses itself, or c.) the U.S. Legislature amends the Bill of Rights to re-word the 2nd Amendment.

Other than that, what's said is said. We can rely on this decision as precedent, within the jurisdiction to which it applies. It doesn't matter if a new law is passed which cancels the overturned laws. The new law must satisfy the precedent.
 
If H.R. 1399 is feared to act as a spoiler then it would be better to encourage the author to withdraw the bill from consideration than to try to convince that list of anti-firearm hacks to not bring it forward.

Waxman :barf:
Lantos :barf:
Maloney :barf:
Kucinich :barf:
Sarbanes :barf:
 
Jimpeel, what I fear is that the house Democrats will proceed with the bill under the guise of protecting the 2A (notice it was a democrat from Arkansas that vetted this bill?).

Samurai, sorry to disappoint you. If the bill in question is passed, it removes the barriers that the lawsuit was against. Removing the laws would make the declaratory and injunctive challenges of the Parker case moot, and would prevent en banc review and Supreme Court review. The Circuit panels decision would be vacated and remanded to trial court with instructions to dismiss the case.

We would be right back where we started, with only the weak case of the 5th Circuit, and the anti-individual stance of the other Circuits (most notably, the 9th).

We need this case to move forward. Preferably to the Supreme Court, where I suspect the ruling would be upheld. Then all the Circuits would have to comply with the decision (that the 2A is an individual right).
 
Antipas, I'm sorry. You're simply wrong on this.

If the review of the decision by an en banc court, or by the Supreme Court, becomes moot, they will not "overturn" the decision of the D.C. Circuit with orders to rule in favor of the government. The decision by the D.C. Circuit will stand as binding precedent within the jurisdiction. The case will be returned to the lower court with orders to dismiss the suit. However, the opinion will still be precedent, and from now on, the concept of "individual right" will act as precedent upon review of any new laws that are passed.

In other words, if the new law is passed, it may make moot any further appeal of THIS case. However, the appeal that has thus far been carried out will act as precedent against any enforcement of the NEW law. The ball will be in the anti-'s court to prove that the D.C. Circuit's opinion was WRONG. THEY will have to appeal the ruling, in an attempt to get the new law enforced.

I'm really ok with that.
 
Everything is moot, the case will have been decided in SCOTUS 5 times before Congress gets around to it.
Click to expand...

Cingress got around to it 200+ years ago. THe problem is the Judiciary has its own agenda and tends to rewrite the law as they go.
 
Antipitas mentioned HR 1399. first I'd heard of it or anything like it.

Jimpeel mentioned the following, as being supporters of 1399:


Waxman
Lantos
Maloney
Kucinich
Sarbanes

Given the past performances of those 5, I would think, until it was proven otherwise, that ANYTHING they supported was bad news for our side, though I could perhaps be wrong. Don't think so though.

Other than that, why, and or to what purpose this HR 1399. A federal appeals court has declared the DC law(s) to be unconstitutional, while also noting that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. While this ruling could be overturned, what is the liklehood of such action, it seems that this new proposal served only to muddy the waters. Seems as if "muddy waters" are something that thre anti gunners thrive on.

Seems as if Congressmen Mike Ross, [D AR-4] and sponsor Rep Mark E. Souder, [R IN-3] need to hear from their constituents, perhaps others too, regarding withdrawal of the proposal.
 
Jimpeel mentioned the following, as being supporters of 1399:
Click to expand...
I don't know their feelings about H.R. 1399. I was merely mentioning the fact that they are the usual anti-firearms hacks who have supported anti-firearms laws and proposals in the past.
 
hehe

i am on the stop the nra email alert list, i want to know what they are spewing :barf: i got this in response to this judges ruling .

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,
Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com

P.S. Your gift will be worth double when you give to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.
Click to expand...

I found it very humorous. Nothing like fear to get those dollars eh? They sound rather panic-ed as well. Just thought you would like to know
 
CelticMP,
Outstanding and thanks for posting it. I haven't received an e-mail from Brady yet on this matter.
Open question to the forum: What can we do as individuals to help make these fears a reality?

[edit] Also, gotta love the blatant dishonesty here
All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
Finely crafted and highly misleading :)
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
 
all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.
Click to expand...

???? Donations to the Brady's are tax deductable??? I did not think NRA/ILA donations were so why would Brady ones be?

I like how they define this decision as "judicial activism" when it was based on a literal interpretation of the 2A. I don't care what precedent is overturned. If it is bad precedent it has no right standing and if construtionist reading of the Constitution results in precedent's reversal it is a good thing.
 
The Brady Bunch has already been caught using 501c3 status for 501c4 causes in the past.

The Million Mental Midgets got thrown out of their nice digs because of the same reason once San Francisco General Hospital was alerted to their deception by Jim March. In a last ditch for survival they tied their tail to the "Brady Campaign".
 
Well I've been looking this over every which way I can, and I just don't see how the current S.C. could not interpret the 2nd as an individual right.
Worst case I'd place them at 5-4 in our favor and best case 8-1.
The only one that has made unfriendly noises on the subject is Breyer.
2 (Stevens & Kennedy) are completely mute on the subject but have an established Libertarian record

Roberts does not consider Miller to be settled law and seems extremely sympathetic. Thomas is genuinely miffed that they have not revisited the 2nd.

The rest have either been on record in support of an individual right interpretation or (even better) have cited it as existing in prior opinions.

Thoughts? This is really the million dollar question.

Brady and co. better pray that this case doesn't make it to the S.C.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top