Washington D.C. Gun Ban Unconstitutional!
Wow. I have just spent the last few hours reading the decision handed down by The Federal Appeals Court today. Take this link if you want to read it.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Surf your favorite news sites, and I am sure you will find stories on this. Some of them might even attempt to tell you what it means. For my own part, I am not entirely certain yet. It appears that the decision reversed only the law preventing the liscencing of new handguns, (which has been in place since the '70s) but the arguments put forth by the majority would seem to be applicable to most gun laws I have read. The one disenting judge used the same old argument that the 2nd amendmant grants only a collective right, but primarily based her opinion that D.C. is specifically exempt as it is not a state.
One thing is certain. The decision is going to be appealed. This is extremely dangerous, as what they decide is going to essentially be the law of the land for years to come. If they uphold the decision, that will open up an entire catagory of legislation for legal challenge. If they reverse the decision, the right to own a firearm will have been basically erased.
This is a big one folks. Prepare for fireworks no matter which way it goes.......
posted by Harles @ 3/09/2007 05:02:00 PM
1 Comments:
So I will admit I haven't read it all. I have read up to the point where they mention an old guy in Britain that pretty much says that a people should be able to have weapons. It is sad to that this has happened. The way the politics for cities have gone is that once one city enacts a law there is bound to be several others follow. This is going to be a big one.
I guess if someone wanted to have a gun in the city that they can become a cop and retire. But that shouldn't be the case.
I have always wondered what would happen if some country invaded the US. What would all the gangs do? Would they become a militia in a sense? Would they stay close to home or would they travel to the fighting? I hope that no one ever invades the US.
It is weird to me that it has come down to interpreting the law. for example what did the founding fathers mean by "the right of the People". It seems pretty obvious to me that it is the people that make up the country. But the lawyer will fight to the death trying to twist the words of people and other cases in his favor. What does the lawyer care. The lawyer is getting paid no matter what. The lawyer knows dang well what the law states but will change it just to get paid. The supreme court probably spends most of there time determining what the law states and what they think the law was supposed to mean.
Post a Comment
<< Home