Thor
Active Member
Majority opinion:
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
So, they ruled
1)Just because DC isn't a State doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply
2)2nd Amendment is an individual right
3)2nd Amendment isn't limited to militia related activities.
Here's another gem:
"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
The 1 judge that dissented apparently said "DC isn't a state, so the 2nd doesn't apply." Of coruse, if that's true, the entire Constitution wouldn't apply to DC, which is nonsense. Glen at Instapundit (a lawyer) said that the dissenting opinion looks like crap.
Here's the whole opinion: pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.
So, they ruled
1)Just because DC isn't a State doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't apply
2)2nd Amendment is an individual right
3)2nd Amendment isn't limited to militia related activities.
Here's another gem:
"Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
The 1 judge that dissented apparently said "DC isn't a state, so the 2nd doesn't apply." Of coruse, if that's true, the entire Constitution wouldn't apply to DC, which is nonsense. Glen at Instapundit (a lawyer) said that the dissenting opinion looks like crap.
Here's the whole opinion: pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
What is the political problem? It seems that the gov't doesn't want us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves!
you know it will happen too. He's probably preparing that speech already.
