2nd Amendment (another victory)

constitution_small.jpg Can you imagine that the City of Council of Washington DC passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of handguns or any firearm for “lawful” self-defense.  The Federal Appeals Court correctly struck it down, but I hope that the DC Council appeals this so that this decision can pick up the weight of the Supreme Court of the United States along the way and we can start talking about this as “settled law” such as the Roe v. Waders.

By: David Nakamura and Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A01  

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional.  The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms. The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation’s first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years. 

MORE:  Washington Post


7 Responses to “2nd Amendment (another victory)”

  1. 1 bd May 8, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    “Let’s be honest: Although there are many fine officers in the police department, there’s a simple test. Call Domino’s Pizza or the police, and time which one gets there first,” Palmer said.

    I think this shows just how necessary a “well armed militia of private citizens” is in maintaining the peace of those private citizens. I honestly don’t know why so many Americans are ready and willing to out source their personal security to ineffecient government entities staffed by politically-correct recruits.

  2. 3 theobromophile May 8, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    What really gets to me is that the right to keep and bear arms is EXPLICITLY part of the Constitution. Liberals attack it like there’s no tomorrow and pass unconstitutional laws in an attempt to subvert it, yet talk about the “Constitutional right” to privacy (nowhere to be found in said document), affirmative action, or the like.

    They don’t seem to grasp the fact that such a right was put in there because there are people like them in the world who would strip that right from law-abiding citizens.

    Furthermore, DC is one of the most dangerous cities in the country. I lived there. The danger is in a bunch of armed criminals who know that their targets – women walking alone, some kid down the street, or a convenience-store owner – are all unarmed. The law-abiding citizens, i.e. those we want to protect, have no means of defending themselves. We can’t undo gun technology and pretend that they don’t exist, so we need a reasonable way of dealing with deadly weapons. Limiting their use to criminals doesn’t seem to be a wise move.

    Finally, I shudder to think of a society in which only the police are armed. Ever known a cop who abused his power? Who pulls you over for no reason to harass you? Cops don’t become saints or angels because of their training or their uniforms; why should they be treated as such? (Hat tip to James Madison, the Federalist No. 51.)

  3. 4 stevereenie May 8, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    bd……..you got it that is why it is in there.

    theobromophile……….The absurd and amazing thing is those such as the Hilderbeast pretend that when SCOTUS protects the late (very late) term babies from infantacide (remember that old phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” that this defines the erosion of our Constitutional rights, not some insane law in DC that prohibits self defense.

  4. 5 theobromophile May 9, 2007 at 2:02 am

    You said it better than I could have.

  5. 6 misi May 9, 2007 at 9:13 am

    The only thing I can say is Uck. What’s next?

  6. 7 the Grit May 11, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Hi s,

    The best thing for the Supremes to do is pass it by. That has the same effect, with no chance for a screwup. Oh, and didn’t DC loose another court case about owning firearms not long ago?

    Hi bd,

    Actually, the police get to my place faster. Of course, I have an advantage since they know me and I let them picnic and fish on my property. Not, I should point out, that this keeps me from being well armed.

    the Grit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

May 2007
« Apr   Jun »

Blog Stats

  • 7,398 hits

%d bloggers like this: