D.C. Handgun Ban Reversed By Federal Court [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : D.C. Handgun Ban Reversed By Federal Court


luxone
03-09-2007, 20:33
This is a very big ruling that could lead to a huge ruling by the Supreme Court on the 2A.
D.C. Handgun Ban Reversed By Federal Court (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/national/main2554309.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2554309)

Patrick Graham
03-09-2007, 22:56
I had hped the SCOTUS would be stacked with Republican appointees before something like this happened.. the limp wristed clinton appointees could screw us...

Harlequin
03-10-2007, 06:27
I predict that they refuse to hear the case.

KSFreeman
03-10-2007, 07:42
Har, no way they have to hear it.

The Supreme Court will hear it but uphold the ban. They will find that the Second Amendment merits a lesser level of protection, called "rational basis" review instead of "scrict scrutiny."

If this ban is allowed to be overturned, it is the end of gun control and the Power Elite that would be our masters cannot let that stand.

Patrick Graham
03-10-2007, 10:01
Originally posted by KSFreeman
Har, no way they have to hear it.

The Supreme Court will hear it but uphold the ban. They will find that the Second Amendment merits a lesser level of protection, called "rational basis" review instead of "scrict scrutiny."

If this ban is allowed to be overturned, it is the end of gun control and the Power Elite that would be our masters cannot let that stand.

I fear that you are correct...

I just wish we would have had more of an opportunity to stack the SCOTUS with real people before this happened.. I see it as a one time chance...

Harlequin
03-11-2007, 16:22
John Longnecker's take:

D.C.íS GUN BAN IS ITSELF BANNED!

As you may have heard the week of March 9th, 2007, the Court Of Appeals tossed out the Washington, D.C. gun ban and declared it unconstitutional.

Thatís right Ė Unconstitutional. It may go to the Supreme Court, but for now, itís ruled by an Appeal Courts and it has legal significance. There is a 30-day stay of execution, I believe, and D.C. Mare Fenty has announced that his city intends to defy the court ruling and continue to enforce the ban.

Nation of laws, my eye. Donít ever trust a liberal who ever says again that we are a nation of laws.

There is no such thing as sensible gun laws.

This weekís commentary centers around the reaction of the drones who want gun bans in place. But why?

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said in response to the announcement that he was outraged. He reportedly said, ďIt flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia.Ē

It has done no such thing. Gun control paves the way for one-sided aggression, as your city has the highest violence crime rate in the nation, and one-sided violence has grown because the victim is defenseless against beatings, knifings, rapes, robberies, murders and many gun and non-gun attacks, ban or no ban. As I have said, officials do not get an opinion on a civil right, they get their instructions, and oath of office binds the official to defending what the court just announced. You have no wiggle room or latitude for creative governance on this subject. No official does.

None.

Meanwhile, the court has deemed that Cityís gun ban unconstitutional Ė especially upbraiding because the matter involves defiance of a civil right. If you preside over gun control, you break your oath of office from Day One and every day thereafter.

This is huge this way. The Second Amendment is a civil right ignored by a champion of civil rights in the nationís capitol. What a wonderful example of the party in Congress at this time. What a wonderful example of governance in action.

Another court has found New Orleans Mare Nagin in contempt of court for confiscating weapons from stranded homeowners during hurricane Katrina, then denying that he had care, custody, and control over them, and then contempt of court for refusal to return them once heíd been exposed.

Arenít we on a perjury kick this month? Isnít contempt of court up there with perjury?

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and others whose opinions range from the subtle claimed reasonableness of gun laws to the coerced, outright confiscation are all exercising an unconstitutional control over your sovereignty when they compel other citizens to turn in their guns. Unconstitutional gun laws affect everybody. Mares and Senators who defy the court ruling affect you, too.

Ladies and gentlemen, gun control is illegal for a very old reason. That reason has not changed. It never will, because politicians utilize violence as an excuse to disarm the citizen in order to cultivate dependency on them. That is their business and the cost to us is unacceptable. Let independence shine through and you embarrass the concept of gun control as an anti-crime measure.

Personal weapons are not about hunting ducks or shooting as a sport Ė it is because the armed citizen can fight crime better than the drones who want you to depend on them.

Crime is not fought by the administration of justice Ė a vital component of our society, but an after-the-fact concept nevertheless Ė crime is fought instance-by-instance during the fact, when it can be stopped from escalating into tragedy. After all, crime is not fought once the criminal is gone. Thatís a fight where the criminal won and the damage is done. Not smart to make a citizen defenseless. Not good for the country. Great for drones, but not for citizens.

Coerced dependency is the goal in making violent crime a crisis. They think itís leadership, but itís really farming a crop of their own. The tragedy is that the crisis is developed with the full knowledge and utter indifference that people will be hurt when unable to defend themselves, when criminals are turned loose, but that this is somehow necessary for some far-off ultimate social justice. Or business as usual.

Defiance of a court ruling with a schedule date to take effect is quite clear. Defiance of the law.

The armed citizen is the original Homeland Security. And it negates Ė it impeaches Ė the need for such counter-intuitive laws of gun control, early release and other stupid programs which prey on the constituents.

Gun control says that you have to wait for police to get there to protect you Ė but police have no such duty. Or didnít the Mare know this? The Court knows it, and Police know it. Attorneys know it, and gun owners know it.

Gun control is predatory.

The armed citizen Ė armed by the law of the land as the Court has ruled Ė is the best resistance in time of violent crime because they are on scene, because they are already possessed of all legal authority they need, and because they are tactically the first Ė and last Ė line of defense as the case is often in the absence of first responders.

Self-defense is one of the most powerful statements of citizen independence, and gun control is an intentional interference with it. Predatory.

Now the Court Of Appeals says that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (just like all our other rights) and that a gun ban is illegal because it is unconstitutional.

And drone officials say they are outraged, others refuse to return confiscated weapons, and one or two others run for the Oval Office on an un-American opinion that some gun laws against a civil right are reasonable.

This means that all their talk about civil rights just went down the toilet.

2008 Candidates: get smart. Criminals probably arenít registered voters, and our sovereignty and safety are not a commodity for you to broker. Our nation is not yours to give away, but it is yours to defend.

It is time to repeal all gun laws as unconstitutional and to do the job of protecting the rights of armed citizens as necessary for the security of a free state.

Iíd say thatís a pretty good plank in a conservative platform for 2008.

Iíd say that itís good for the country.